well
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Licence_and_Legal_FAQ#The_OpenStreetMap_Geodata_Licence
Secondly, you *"Share Alike"*. If you do not make any changes to
OpenStreetMap data, then you are unlikely to have a "Share Alike"
obligation. But, if you _publicly distribute something that you have
made_ from our data, such as a _map or another database_, AND you have
_added to or enhanced our data_, then we want you to make those
additions publicly available. We obviously prefer it if you added the
data straight back to our database, but you do not have to, _as long
as the public can easily get a copy of what you have done._ If you do
not publicly distribute anything, then you do not have to share anything.
Às 19:34 de 13/12/2019, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk escreveu:
Nuno - I think you are operating under the mistaken assumption that a
CC-BY-SA license would mean that uses such as Mattias's would require
sharealike.
Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Derivative Work:
*"Derivative Work"*means a work based upon the Work or upon the Work
and other pre-existing works, such as a translation, musical
arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version,
sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any
other form in which the Work may be recast, transformed, or adapted,
except that a work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be
considered a Derivative Work for the purpose of this License. For the
avoidance of doubt, where the Work is a musical composition or sound
recording, the synchronization of the Work in timed-relation with a
moving image ("synching") will be considered a Derivative Work for the
purpose of this License.
Here's CC-BY-SA's definition of a Collective Work:
*"Collective Work"*means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology
or encyclopedia, in which the Work in its entirety in unmodified form,
along with a number of other contributions, constituting separate and
independent works in themselves, are assembled into a collective
whole. A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be
considered a Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of
this License.
As you can see from these examples (which focus on creative
derivatives, since facts are not even copyrightable in the US and
there is no US database protection law), a "derivative work" needs
quite a bit of the original to qualify. The meaning of a "derivative
work" was always much narrower than what a colloquial understanding of
what "derived" might be, and the change in license did not change that.
-Kathleen
On Fri, Dec 13, 2019 at 11:11 AM Nuno Caldeira
<nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com <mailto:nunocapelocalde...@gmail.com>>
wrote:
these new Liberal interpretation of ODbL are funny. to bad it's
not documented what we wanted when we changed license. seems to be
full of lies
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License
/
/
/"This means that “good guys” are stopped from using our data but
the “bad guys” may be able to use it anyway." /
/
/
/" We believe that a reasonable consensus has been built that our
current progress should be to maintain a Share-Alike license (see
more below) but have it written explicitly for data."/
/
/
/"Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”." /
/
/
/"But what happens if the Foundation is taken over by people with
commercial interests?/
* /You still own the rights to any data you contribute, not the
Foundation. In the new Contributor Terms, you license the
Foundation to publish the data for others to use and ONLY
under a free and open license./
* /The Foundation is not allowed to take your contribution and
release it under a commercial license./
* /If the Foundation fails to publish under only a free and open
license, it has broken its contract with you. A copy of the
existing data can be made and released by a different body./
* /If a change is made to another free and open license, it is
active contributors who decide yes or no, not the Foundation."/
On Fri, 13 Dec 2019, 18:56 Frederik Ramm, <frede...@remote.org
<mailto:frede...@remote.org>> wrote:
Hi,
On 13.12.19 19:28, Kathleen Lu via legal-talk wrote:
> “Derivative Database” – Means a database based upon the
Database, and
> includes any translation, adaptation, arrangement,
modification, or any
> other alteration of the Database or of a Substantial part of the
> Contents.
Interesting. I knew the ODbL text but I have always glossed
over this
definition, assuming that "well you know what derived means".
I'll have to ponder this for a while, it changes some
assumptions I had
made. It would mean that, for example, a database that
contains a count
of all pubs in each municipality, or a database that contains the
average travel time from a building in a city to the nearest
hospital,
or a heatmap of ice cream parlours, would not fall under the ODbL
because these, while derived from OSM, do not actually contain
a copy of
anything in OSM (and neither could they possibly be used to
reassemble
OSM).
I had until now assumed that such works would definitely fall
under the
ODbL but you are right, they don't really fit the "Derivative
Database"
definition.
Bye
Frederik
--
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org
<mailto:frede...@remote.org> ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
