On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:52 PM, John Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > On 11 July 2011 19:29, Richard Fairhurst <[email protected]> wrote: >> It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A "Collective >> Database" or "Collective Work" means that the ODbL part of it is under ODbL >> and the CC-BY-SA part is under CC-BY-SA. This is the very first clause (1a) >> of CC-BY-SA. >> >> In Australian legal terms, the two databases are "underlying works" and so >> retain their own rights. The two together are a "compilation" (albeit one >> that is so simple it doesn't attract any additional copyright in itself), >> and therefore users need permission of the rights-holders in the underlying >> works. This permission has already been granted in the two open content >> licences used: the "Collective Work" permission of CC-BY-SA and the >> "Collective Database" permission of ODbL. > > It's my understanding that CC-by-SA is only compatible with itself, > and it's definitely not compatible with the ODBL because the ODBL > doesn't require any sort of minimum attribution or share a like clause > on produced works.
What he's saying is there is no requirement under Australian Copyright law (or CC licence) for a whole compilation/database/document to have the same licence. It's the same way the Government can use Creative Commons for official documents but they exempt the Coat of Arms from that licence (because under Australian law, only officers of the Commonwealth can use the Coat of Arms and they use it to signify official documents/property). The CC licence calls a compilation of things a Collective Work and "this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this Licence." http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/au/legalcode Collective Works are not Derivative Works so this is okay! _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
