Re: [Talk-ca] ODbL vs CC-BY

[Begin Daniel]

Merci Charles, you make my day!
Daniel

-Original Message-
From: Charles Basenga Kiyanda [mailto:perso...@charleskiyanda.com] 
Sent: Thursday, 6 October, 2016 15:02
To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] ODbL vs CC-BY

I would rather look here:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility


CC-by-4.0 is still under review, but all other CC-by-x.x licences have a 
problem with attribution:

"is ODbL compatible if rights holder(s) explicitly states in writing that 
credit on the Contributors <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors> 
page is sufficient to fulfil attribution requirements including downstream use 
in works derived from OSM "

Montreal was also releasing under a CC-by-x and the problem was fixed by 
getting confirmation from the city that "the mode of attribution of 
openstreetmap by linking to the import sources contribution page is enough to 
satisfy their requirement for attribution under CC-by." We then kept that email 
very preciously and posted it everywhere we could find to make sure it doesn't 
get lost/forgotten.

If CC-by-4.0 has a specific clause regarding technical protection measures 
(TPM, think encryption, hashing to prevent further people from modifying the 
database) extra from previous versions of CC-by, you'd need to get a waiver 
from the source contributor on that point as well.
This being said, the Odbl summary states:

"/Keep open:/ If you redistribute the database, or an adapted version of it, 
then you may use technological measures that restrict the work (such as DRM) as 
long as you also redistribute a version without such measures."

[From http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/]

Technically, it clashes with the following in CC-by-4.0:

"No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional or 
different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures 
to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights 
by any recipient of the Licensed Material."

If one wants to be particularly pedantic (which I guess you should be with 
licenses), then yes those two paragraphs conflict. CC-by-4.0 says "you can't 
encrypt the data" and Odbl says "You can encrypt the data if you make an 
unencrypted version available". The fact that you have to (under Odbl) make an 
unencrypted/unencumbered version available somewhere kind of makes the point 
moot, but you always have the possibility someone would make the unencumbered 
version available somewhere at "the end of the internet" only and kind of be 
conspicuous about where it actually is located.


To be absolutely shielded, I would ask the city to confirm:

"A) The attribution on the import page satisfies our attribution requirement; 
and B) the requirement, under Odbl, to make a version of the data with no 
technological protection measures satisfies our restriction on TPM."


Then post that email everywhere and keep a paper copy safe somewhere.


Cheers,


Charles (I am an engineer and definitely not a lawyer.)






On 10/05/2016 10:08 AM, Begin Daniel wrote:
>
> I was looking at open data that are available in my neighbourhood and 
> I found interesting contents under CC-BY 4.0 license.
>
>  
>
> According to the above web site, the CC-BY 4.0 is not compatible with 
> the OSM license (ODbL) because the CC-BY 4.0 license “prohibits 
> technical protection measures while ODC-ODbL does not contain any such 
> stipulation”
>
> http://clipol.org/licences/70?tab=licence_compatibility
>
>  
>
> Does someone on this list can explain what it means and how it applies 
> to OSM?
>
>  
>
> Thank
>
> Daniel
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Protection measures are, for instance, digital rights management 
> software that restricts the ability of those who receive a CC-licensed 
> work to exercise rights granted under the license.
>
>  
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] ODbL vs CC-BY

[Charles Basenga Kiyanda]

I would rather look here:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility


CC-by-4.0 is still under review, but all other CC-by-x.x licences have a
problem with attribution:

"is ODbL compatible if rights holder(s) explicitly states in writing
that credit on the Contributors
 page is sufficient to
fulfil attribution requirements including downstream use in works
derived from OSM "

Montreal was also releasing under a CC-by-x and the problem was fixed by
getting confirmation from the city that "the mode of attribution of
openstreetmap by linking to the import sources contribution page is
enough to satisfy their requirement for attribution under CC-by." We
then kept that email very preciously and posted it everywhere we could
find to make sure it doesn't get lost/forgotten.

If CC-by-4.0 has a specific clause regarding technical protection
measures (TPM, think encryption, hashing to prevent further people from
modifying the database) extra from previous versions of CC-by, you'd
need to get a waiver from the source contributor on that point as well.
This being said, the Odbl summary states:

"/Keep open:/ If you redistribute the database, or an adapted version of
it, then you may use technological measures that restrict the work (such
as DRM) as long as you also redistribute a version without such measures."

[From http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/]

Technically, it clashes with the following in CC-by-4.0:

"No downstream restrictions. You may not offer or impose any additional
or different terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective
Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if doing so restricts
exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material."

If one wants to be particularly pedantic (which I guess you should be
with licenses), then yes those two paragraphs conflict. CC-by-4.0 says
"you can't encrypt the data" and Odbl says "You can encrypt the data if
you make an unencrypted version available". The fact that you have to
(under Odbl) make an unencrypted/unencumbered version available
somewhere kind of makes the point moot, but you always have the
possibility someone would make the unencumbered version available
somewhere at "the end of the internet" only and kind of be conspicuous
about where it actually is located.


To be absolutely shielded, I would ask the city to confirm:

"A) The attribution on the import page satisfies our attribution
requirement; and B) the requirement, under Odbl, to make a version of
the data with no technological protection measures satisfies our
restriction on TPM."


Then post that email everywhere and keep a paper copy safe somewhere.


Cheers,


Charles (I am an engineer and definitely not a lawyer.)






On 10/05/2016 10:08 AM, Begin Daniel wrote:
>
> I was looking at open data that are available in my neighbourhood and
> I found interesting contents under CC-BY 4.0 license.
>
>  
>
> According to the above web site, the CC-BY 4.0 is not compatible with
> the OSM license (ODbL) because the CC-BY 4.0 license “prohibits
> technical protection measures while ODC-ODbL does not contain any such
> stipulation”
>
> http://clipol.org/licences/70?tab=licence_compatibility
>
>  
>
> Does someone on this list can explain what it means and how it applies
> to OSM?
>
>  
>
> Thank
>
> Daniel
>
>  
>
>  
>
> Protection measures are, for instance, digital rights management
> software that restricts the ability of those who receive a CC-licensed
> work to exercise rights granted under the license.
>
>  
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca