Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?
On 07/25/2010 05:24 PM, Anthony wrote: So why hasn't OSMF moved OSM to CC-BY-SA 3.0? The upgrade clause makes that nearly as simple as "sed 's/2.0/3.0/g' index.html", right? Nearly. But at least one major contribution to OSM is from a jurisdiction where the 2.0 licences included the EU DB Right. A more general point is that OSM(F) not asserting the DB right on OSM doesn't mean no-one else will assert it on a derivative, which breaks the idea of the data being freely usable for everyone. The problem isn't that OSM(F) might be evil and assert DB right. The problem is that *anyone* might. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/24/2010 05:43 PM, Anthony wrote: On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Rob Myers mailto:r...@robmyers.org>> wrote: On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:59:52 -0400, Anthony mailto:o...@inbox.org>> wrote: > > How? By acknowledging their existence and using them against themselves. I don't follow. The ODbL does the same thing to the restrictions of the DB Right and of contract law that copyleft does to copyright. It acknowledges them, asserts them, and then uses them to ensure that they cannot be used to restrict use any further thereby neutralizing them. Changing attribution is comparably difficult to relicensing under the ODbL? I'm sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I don't follow. It is comparably difficult because it requires consulting the same number of people about an issue that some people have surprisingly strong objections to. > Personally I disagree with that hallucination. A mash-up is a derivative > work. In fact, I'd say it's pretty much the quintessential example of the > derivative work. I agree with you. But the community standards of OSM don't seem to. But that just doesn't make any logical sense. It doesn't make any *legal* sense. ;-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/24/2010 05:46 PM, Anthony wrote: But that would mean that mashing up CC-BY-SA data with ODbL data would violate CC-BY-SA. Copyleft licences (or a copyleft licence and a hybrid copyright/DB Right/contract law conceptual approximation of sharealike) are *generally* mutually incompatible as they require derivative works to be placed under the same single licence. You can however mash-up the produced work under BY-SA. Creative Commons did put a mechanism in place with BY-SA 3.0 to declare other licences "compatible" with BY-SA and allow derivatives to be relicenced under them. But they haven't declared any compatible yet. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Rob Myers schrieb: Creative Commons did put a mechanism in place with BY-SA 3.0 to declare other licences "compatible" with BY-SA and allow derivatives to be relicenced under them. But they haven't declared any compatible yet. So updating our 2.0 to 3.0 and then finding a licence compatible with cc-3.0-by-sa would be a way to avoid all loss of data and problems with asking all members and all other problems? Then we should search a compatible way ... Mueck ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
Hi, Heiko Jacobs wrote: Rob Myers schrieb: Creative Commons did put a mechanism in place with BY-SA 3.0 to declare other licences "compatible" with BY-SA and allow derivatives to be relicenced under them. But they haven't declared any compatible yet. So updating our 2.0 to 3.0 and then finding a licence compatible with cc-3.0-by-sa would be a way to avoid all loss of data and problems with asking all members and all other problems? Then we should search a compatible way ... This would require the cooperation of Creative Commons. They would have to explicitly declare a database license as compatible with their 3.0 license. Since ODbL arose from an abandoned attempt by CC to find such a license, I think it is unlikely that they would do that. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?
On 25 July 2010 18:49, Todd Huffman wrote: > Can you point me to a reference on this? Ideally there would be a > resource which laid out which jurisdictions one can put something into > public domain. > LMGTFY; http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/6225 / Grant ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 07/24/2010 05:46 PM, Anthony wrote: > >> >> But that would mean that mashing up CC-BY-SA data with ODbL data would >> violate CC-BY-SA. >> > > Copyleft licences (or a copyleft licence and a hybrid copyright/DB > Right/contract law conceptual approximation of sharealike) are *generally* > mutually incompatible as they require derivative works to be placed under > the same single licence. > > You can however mash-up the produced work under BY-SA. > Only if you license the produced work under BY-SA. Which means *all elements* of the produced work are under BY-SA. Which means *the data* encapsulated in the produced work is under BY-SA. Which means anybody who extracts the data back out of the produced work would get the data under BY-SA. But looking at the text of the license, I don't think you can do that. ODbL Section 4.6 says "If You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database, You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work a copy in a machine readable form..." But that is incompatible with BY-SA, which says that "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder." A produced work under BY-SA can be publicly used without offering recipients the source database. But a produced work from an ODbL database cannot be publicly used without offering recipients the source database. I'm not sure if that's intentional or not. I suspect the creators of the ODbL wanted to have their cake and eat it too. But you can't do that. If the data can be used in a produced work under BY-SA, then the data has to be BY-SA. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Anthony wrote: > On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > >> On 07/24/2010 05:46 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >>> >>> But that would mean that mashing up CC-BY-SA data with ODbL data would >>> violate CC-BY-SA. >>> >> >> Copyleft licences (or a copyleft licence and a hybrid copyright/DB >> Right/contract law conceptual approximation of sharealike) are *generally* >> mutually incompatible as they require derivative works to be placed under >> the same single licence. >> >> You can however mash-up the produced work under BY-SA. >> > > Only if you license the produced work under BY-SA. Which means *all > elements* of the produced work are under BY-SA. Which means *the data* > encapsulated in the produced work is under BY-SA. Which means anybody who > extracts the data back out of the produced work would get the data under > BY-SA. > > But looking at the text of the license, I don't think you can do that. > ODbL Section 4.6 says "If You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or a > Produced Work from a Derivative Database, You must also offer to recipients > of the Derivative Database or Produced Work a copy in a machine readable > form..." But that is incompatible with BY-SA, which says that "You may not > offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of > this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder." > A produced work under BY-SA can be publicly used without offering recipients > the source database. But a produced work from an ODbL database cannot be > publicly used without offering recipients the source database. > > I'm not sure if that's intentional or not. I suspect the creators of the > ODbL wanted to have their cake and eat it too. But you can't do that. If > the data can be used in a produced work under BY-SA, then the data has to be > BY-SA. > You said, "Which means *all elements* of the produced work are under BY-SA." This is already the invalid step in your "proof". If I license a Wikipedia article under CC-BY-SA, that doesn't mean that the pictures in that article have to be CC-BY-SA. If I license an album of songs under CC-BY-SA, that doesn't mean that each song in the album have to be CC-BY-SA as well. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > You said, "Which means *all elements* of the produced work are under > BY-SA." > > This is already the invalid step in your "proof". If I license a Wikipedia > article under CC-BY-SA, that doesn't mean that the pictures in that article > have to be CC-BY-SA. If I license an album of songs under CC-BY-SA, that > doesn't mean that each song in the album have to be CC-BY-SA as well. > That's because a Wikipedia article (according to Wikipedia, anyway) and an album of songs (more clearly) is a "Collective Work" under CC-BY-SA. Are you saying that a mash-up is a "Collective Work" under CC-BY-SA? Is that a topic that's been discussed before on this mailing list? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:59 AM, Anthony wrote: > > Is that a topic that's been discussed before on this mailing list? Here it is in the wiki: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Common_licence_interpretations [quote] If what you create is based on OSM data (for example if you create a new layer by looking at the OSM data and refering to locations on it) then it is likely you have created a derivative work. If you generate a merged work with OSM data and other data (such as a printed map or pdf map) where the non-OSM data can no longer be considered to be separate and independent from the OSM data, is is likely you have created a derivative work. If you overlay OSM data with your own data created from other sources (for example you going out there with a GPS receiver) and the layers are kept separate and independent, and the OSM layer is unchanged, then you may have created a collective work. If you have created a derivative work, the work as a whole must be subject to the OSM licence. If you have created a collective work, then only the OSM component of the work must be subject to the OSM licence. [/quote] ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: > If I license a Wikipedia > article under CC-BY-SA, that doesn't mean that the pictures in that article > have to be CC-BY-SA. Sorry for the triple post. Go to a Wikipedia article. Look at the notice on the bottom. It says "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" It does not say "this article is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License". ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/26/2010 04:29 PM, Anthony wrote: Only if you license the produced work under BY-SA. Which means *all elements* of the produced work are under BY-SA. Which means *the data* encapsulated in the produced work is under BY-SA. No, it means the produced work is BY-SA. Which means anybody who extracts the data back out of the produced work would get the data under BY-SA. Yes I am curious about this. We should ask ODC about it (it's not in the FAQ). But looking at the text of the license, I don't think you can do that. ODbL Section 4.6 says "If You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database, You must also offer to recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work a copy in a machine readable form..." But that is incompatible with BY-SA, which says that "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder." A produced work under BY-SA can be publicly used without offering recipients the source database. But a produced work from an ODbL database cannot be publicly used without offering recipients the source database. If you receive a produced work under BY-SA you just have to maintain the attribution explaining where to get the database used to create the produced work (ODbL 4.3). And if you then fetch and use the database, you are receiving, modifying and distributing the database under ODbL, not BY-SA. So there are two parallel distribution and derivation graphs, of the ODbL-licenced databse and the (sometimes) BY-SA licenced works. Neither interferes with the rights granted under the other. I'm not sure if that's intentional or not. I suspect the creators of the ODbL wanted to have their cake and eat it too. But you can't do Well, to make sure everyone gets the recipe for the cake. ;-) that. If the data can be used in a produced work under BY-SA, then the data has to be BY-SA. No it doesn't. That's why there is such a thing as a produced work in contrast to a derivative work. (I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice.) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:07 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 07/26/2010 04:29 PM, Anthony wrote: >> But looking at the text of the license, I don't think you can do that. >> ODbL Section 4.6 says "If You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or a >> Produced Work from a Derivative Database, You must also offer to >> recipients of the Derivative Database or Produced Work a copy in a >> machine readable form..." But that is incompatible with BY-SA, which >> says that "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter >> or restrict the terms of this License or the recipients' exercise of the >> rights granted hereunder." A produced work under BY-SA can be publicly >> used without offering recipients the source database. But a produced >> work from an ODbL database cannot be publicly used without offering >> recipients the source database. > > If you receive a produced work under BY-SA you just have to maintain the > attribution explaining where to get the database used to create the produced > work (ODbL 4.3). Where are you given permission to copy and distribute the produced work without following the terms of ODbL. (Alternatively, where does the ODbL give you permission to copy and distribute the produced work without following 4.6.) Remember, copyright and database laws default to "all rights reserved" barring a license to the contrary. > So there are two parallel distribution and derivation graphs, of the > ODbL-licenced databse and the (sometimes) BY-SA licenced works. Neither > interferes with the rights granted under the other. That's not how licenses work. By default you have no rights. A license *grants* rights. The only way for the derived work (i.e. the produced work) to be under BY-SA is if the rights holder grants a license under BY-SA. >> that. If the data can be used in a produced work under BY-SA, then the >> data has to be BY-SA. > > No it doesn't. That's why there is such a thing as a produced work in > contrast to a derivative work. That may be the reasoning, but it doesn't work. Consider the LGPL. If I have software under CC-BY-SA, and I want to include an LGPL library, can I do it? No. Not because I'm violating the LGPL, but because I'm violating CC-BY-SA. Incidentally, that's why the LGPL explicitly gives permission to relicense the work under GPL. Otherwise, LGPL wouldn't be compatible with GPL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 26 July 2010 17:19, Anthony wrote: > > Consider the LGPL. If I have software under CC-BY-SA, and I want to > include an LGPL library, can I do it? No. Not because I'm violating > the LGPL, but because I'm violating CC-BY-SA. > > Could you please point out to me code that is actually licenced under CC-BY-SA or any place where people are suggesting to you CC-BY-SA for code? CC-BY-SA is used for creative output, while free software licences are used for code. Right now, that example doesn't make sense. If you want to prove something, you should really start to use meaningful examples with real examples instead of some really far fetched scenarios that are unlikely to happen in the first place. I don't know of any sane project that would licence code under CC-BY-SA in the first place. Emilie Laffray ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 4:56 AM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 07/25/2010 05:24 PM, Anthony wrote: >> >> So why hasn't OSMF moved OSM to CC-BY-SA 3.0? The upgrade clause >> makes that nearly as simple as "sed 's/2.0/3.0/g' index.html", >> right? > > Nearly. > > But at least one major contribution to OSM is from a jurisdiction where the > 2.0 licences included the EU DB Right. > > A more general point is that OSM(F) not asserting the DB right on OSM > doesn't mean no-one else will assert it on a derivative, which breaks the > idea of the data being freely usable for everyone. The problem isn't that > OSM(F) might be evil and assert DB right. The problem is that *anyone* > might. You said yourself that the database right doesn't have to be asserted. No one can assert the database right on a derivative of the OSM database, because they'd need the permission of the maker of the database to do so. (They'd also need to be the maker of the database, which in itself seems unlikely. Not just *anyone* can assert DB right. Only the maker of the database can.) No license at all means all rights reserved. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/26/2010 05:06 PM, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:41 AM, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: If I license a Wikipedia article under CC-BY-SA, that doesn't mean that the pictures in that article have to be CC-BY-SA. Sorry for the triple post. Go to a Wikipedia article. Look at the notice on the bottom. It says "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License" It does not say "this article is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License". There are two different opinions from two different court circuits in the US that bear on whether the images in an article constitute a derivative or collective work and therefore whether they have to be under the same copyleft licence or not. [citation needed] Wikipedia's actions indicate that they accept the opinion that images and text can be licenced differently. The FSF accept the conflicting opinion: http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-05-08-fdl-scope It's possible to honestly hold and justify either position both legally and philosophically (in the US at least). :-) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Emilie Laffray wrote: > On 26 July 2010 17:19, Anthony wrote: >> >> Consider the LGPL. If I have software under CC-BY-SA, and I want to >> include an LGPL library, can I do it? No. Not because I'm violating >> the LGPL, but because I'm violating CC-BY-SA. >> > > Could you please point out to me code that is actually licenced under > CC-BY-SA or any place where people are suggesting to you CC-BY-SA for code? Of course not. Well, I guess there's http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_with_example_pseudocode , but for the most part, no. > CC-BY-SA is used for creative output, while free software licences are used > for code. Unfortunately, there's only one copylefted free software license I could think of, the GPL. > Right now, that example doesn't make sense. If you want to prove something, > you should really start to use meaningful examples with real examples > instead of some really far fetched scenarios that are unlikely to happen in > the first place. I don't know of any sane project that would licence code > under CC-BY-SA in the first place. If you've got a better example, feel free to present it. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:39 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 07/26/2010 05:06 PM, Anthony wrote: >> Go to a Wikipedia article. Look at the notice on the bottom. It says >> "Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike >> License" It does not say "this article is available under the >> Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License". > > There are two different opinions from two different court circuits in the US > that bear on whether the images in an article constitute a derivative or > collective work and therefore whether they have to be under the same > copyleft licence or not. [citation needed] I'd love that citation if you can find it, not because I don't believe you but because that sounds like a couple very interesting cases. > Wikipedia's actions indicate that they accept the opinion that images and > text can be licenced differently. > > The FSF accept the conflicting opinion: > > http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-05-08-fdl-scope > > It's possible to honestly hold and justify either position both legally and > philosophically (in the US at least). :-) Actually, this was an argument for (and for some people, against) Wikipedia switching from GFDL to CC-BY-SA. Even if the courts do say that images in an article constitute a derivative work under law, they *still* might not be considered one under CC-BY-SA, because CC-BY-SA has *its own* definition of "Collective Work", and says that "A work that constitutes a Collective Work will not be considered a Derivative Work (as defined below) for the purposes of this License". Of course, in the case of OSM mash-ups, we're talking about images and images, mashed together in a way that makes them appear as one image. Much much more likely to not be a Collective Work, though I suppose if you overlay them in javascript after downloading them separately you've got an argument (so long as you don't print them out!). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/26/2010 05:19 PM, Anthony wrote: Where are you given permission to copy and distribute the produced work without following the terms of ODbL. Nowhere. However the terms that cover Produced Works are different to those that cover Derivative Databases, and the attribution/advertising requirement on produced works is BY-SA compatible. (Alternatively, where does the ODbL give you permission to copy and distribute the produced work without following 4.6.) 4.6 covers Derivative Databases, not Produced Works. Remember, copyright and database laws default to "all rights reserved" barring a license to the contrary. The ODbL is a licence to the contrary (except where it's a contract ;-) ). So there are two parallel distribution and derivation graphs, of the ODbL-licenced databse and the (sometimes) BY-SA licenced works. Neither interferes with the rights granted under the other. That's not how licenses work. By default you have no rights. A license *grants* rights. The only way for the derived work (i.e. the produced work) to be under BY-SA is if the rights holder grants a license under BY-SA. And if you receive the database under ODbL you have the licence to grant such a licence on Produced Works. Consider the LGPL. If I have software under CC-BY-SA, and I want to include an LGPL library, can I do it? No. Not because I'm violating the LGPL, but because I'm violating CC-BY-SA. CC explicitly state that BY-SA shouldn't be used for software. Incidentally, that's why the LGPL explicitly gives permission to relicense the work under GPL. Otherwise, LGPL wouldn't be compatible with GPL. Imagine a non-BY-SA licence on a work that says "you may licence transformative adaptations of this work under BY-SA as long as you attribute this work". The resulting work people release under BY-SA including the attribution to the original work both satisfies the original licence and is BY-SA compatible. That is the situation with the ODbL and BY-SA. (IANAL, TINLA.) - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?
On 07/26/2010 05:30 PM, Anthony wrote: You said yourself that the database right doesn't have to be asserted. Yes, I should have said "do waive", not "don't assert". No one can assert the database right on a derivative of the OSM database, because they'd need the permission of the maker of the database to do so. Not if OSM(F) waive their own database right and someone incorporates OSM data into a database that they then qualify for DB right over. (They'd also need to be the maker of the database, which in itself seems unlikely. Not just *anyone* can assert DB right. Only the maker of the database can.) No license at all means all rights reserved. Yes. But if OSM(F) waive their database right it doesn't mean that every downstream users of OSM(F) data who might qualify for DB Right also will. Although how an attempt to assert DB Right on a Planet derivative would interact with the ODbL isn't something I've considered. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 07/26/2010 05:19 PM, Anthony wrote: > >> >> Where are you given permission to copy and distribute the produced >> work without following the terms of ODbL. >> > > Nowhere. Then you don't have permission to do so. At least not anywhere that database law or copyright law apply. > However the terms that cover Produced Works are different to those that > cover Derivative Databases, and the attribution/advertising requirement on > produced works is BY-SA compatible. > > > (Alternatively, where does >> the ODbL give you permission to copy and distribute the produced work >> without following 4.6.) >> > > 4.6 covers Derivative Databases, not Produced Works. "or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database" > Remember, copyright and database laws default >> to "all rights reserved" barring a license to the contrary. >> > > The ODbL is a licence to the contrary (except where it's a contract ;-) ). So where in the ODbL does it give you permission to create a derived work, to copy and distribute that derived work, etc? If the answer is nowhere, then you don't have permission to do it. So there are two parallel distribution and derivation graphs, of the >>> ODbL-licenced databse and the (sometimes) BY-SA licenced works. Neither >>> interferes with the rights granted under the other. >>> >> >> That's not how licenses work. By default you have no rights. A >> license *grants* rights. The only way for the derived work (i.e. the >> produced work) to be under BY-SA is if the rights holder grants a >> license under BY-SA. >> > > And if you receive the database under ODbL you have the licence to grant > such a licence on Produced Works. Where does the ODbL give that permission? (Hint: it specifically says you *can't* do it. "You may not sublicense the Database. Each time You communicate the Database, the whole or Substantial part of the Contents, or any Derivative Database to anyone else in any way, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Database ***on the same terms and conditions as this License***." Not "under CC-BY-SA", under ODbL. Emphasis mine.) Incidentally, that's why the LGPL explicitly gives permission to > > relicense the work under GPL. Otherwise, LGPL wouldn't be compatible >> with GPL. >> > > Imagine a non-BY-SA licence on a work that says "you may licence > transformative adaptations of this work under BY-SA as long as you attribute > this work". > > The resulting work people release under BY-SA including the attribution to > the original work both satisfies the original licence and is BY-SA > compatible. > > That is the situation with the ODbL and BY-SA. > Where does ODbL say "you may license transformative adaptations of the work under BY-SA as long as you attribute this work"? It doesn't. It says the opposite. It says you can't sublicense the work at all. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?
On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > On 07/26/2010 05:30 PM, Anthony wrote: > >> No one can assert the database right on a derivative of the OSM >> database, because they'd need the permission of the maker of the >> database to do so. >> > > Not if OSM(F) waive their own database right and someone incorporates OSM > data into a database that they then qualify for DB right over. What if OSMF doesn't waive their own database right, but they just relicense OSM under CC-BY-SA 3.0? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
On 07/26/2010 06:21 PM, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Rob Myers Yes you are right. Reading fail on my part. I apologize. I'll ask odc-discuss about this. It says you can't sublicense the work at all. It says you can't sublicence the database. The DbCL on the other hand (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License#Overview , http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/dbcl/) says you can sublicence the *contents* of the database to your heart's content (clause 2.1) as long as you don't break the ODbL (2.2, 2.3). - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] PD declaration non binding?
On 07/26/2010 06:31 PM, Anthony wrote: On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 1:06 PM, Rob Myers mailto:r...@robmyers.org>> wrote: On 07/26/2010 05:30 PM, Anthony wrote: No one can assert the database right on a derivative of the OSM database, because they'd need the permission of the maker of the database to do so. Not if OSM(F) waive their own database right and someone incorporates OSM data into a database that they then qualify for DB right over. What if OSMF doesn't waive their own database right, but they just relicense OSM under CC-BY-SA 3.0? OSM received at least one large donation of European data under 2.0 from a jurisdiction that did include DB Right in 2.0, so it depends how that would be covered without it. From the PDF Frederik mentioned: http://wiki.creativecommons.org:8080/images/f/f6/V3_Database_Rights.pdf "The waiver also clarifies that restrictions and obligations such as attribution, non-commercial, no- derivatives, and share-alike are not applicable to works, or to the exercise of particular rights, that are only protected by virtue of sui generis database protection." DB Right is not the only issue the ODbL tackles, however. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass
2010/7/23 Anthony : > On Fri, Jul 23, 2010 at 7:37 AM, M∡rtin Koppenhoefer > wrote: >> >> 2010/7/20 andrzej zaborowski : >> > If you find a planet on a bus there's no contract you may be affected >> > by. There may be copyright, which may protect the content. If >> > there's nothing written on it then you basically have to assume "All >> > rights reserved", provided there's any originality, creativity etc. in >> > that planet dump which is not confirmed. >> >> >> usually if you find something (let's say on a bus) you will not become >> legally the proprietor (in the jurisdictions I know of). You have no >> rights whatsoever on the found object but instead have the obligation >> to give it back to the proprietor (e.g. by giving the found object to >> the bus staff, or to a government agency/ the police). > > Depends if the property was lost, mislaid, or abandoned, in the > jurisdictions I know of. do you think it is probable that somebody mislays or abandons a data CD in a bus? I mean it might not be completely impossible, but the lost option is the most probable IMHO. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
