"Actually, I've decided I'm not going to release my data as PD. I prefer copyleft. I prefer CC-BY-SA. It keeps people from taking my data and incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses. Like ODbL."
I'm assuming this is your comment Anthony? (I'm starting to lose track of the thread). OdbL is meant to be copyleft for source data, as far as I can now tell. But what's the problem with people "incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses"? The data under the original licence will (should!) still be made available, and competes with the data made available under the more restrictive licence. Brendan --Original Message Text--- From: Anthony Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:22:55 -0500 On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 1:02 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> wrote: 2009/12/13 Anthony <o...@inbox.org>: > If geodata is not copyrightable, then Share Alike is meaningless. The > original work is public domain, and the modified work is also public domain. Assuming public domains is a valid option, which isn't valid in all jurisdictions. If the data is not copyrightable, then it is by definition public domain. Even where PD is valid if you modify it and choose a license which can be upheld it is no longer PD any more. If the the data is not copyrightable, it is PD, and no "license" is going to magically make it not PD. > The point is, whichever way it's decided, it'll be the same for the modified > data as it is for the original data. If the OSM database is not > copyrightable, neither will the modified database be. If the OSM database > is copyrightable, then the modified database must be. Just because certain copyrights don't exists in some jursidictions doesn't mean they aren't valid in others. Which is the whole reason for ODBL, because geodata may not be considered copyrightable in some areas a new method of enforcing the same thing CC-BY-SA is needed. For the areas where geodata is not copyrightable, CC-BY-SA isn't needed. > If you'd prefer that, fine. But please be honest about this - the ODbL is > more than just a more enforceable version of the spirit of CC-BY-SA. The How is this different than the requirements of the GPL where you need to make changes available if you distribute binaries? Well, it's different from the GPL because it uses contract law, and not just copyright law. As explained in the GPL: "The licenses for most software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users." The ODbL falls into the former category of "licenses". The ODbL *is* somewhat more similar to the GPL than it is to CC-BY-SA. But CC-BY-SA was chosen as the license for OSM, not the GPL. So stop saying the ODbL is in the same spirit as CC-BY-SA. Claim it's in the same spirit as the GPL, and then we can have that discussion. > requirements go beyond requiring derivative works to be licensed under the > same license. Most significantly, the ODbL requires people to offer copies > of any derivative databases that are used in the making of the final > derivative work. Among other things, that means having to keep copies of > such databases, something which is not always done (if I want to alter the > database, render tiles, and then throw out the altered database, I'm not > able to do that, because I have to offer people copies of the altered > database). Again, this is no different than requirements of GPL software. And again, I was comparing ODbL to the intent of CC-BY-SA, not GPL. If you'd like me to compare the ODbL to the GPL, please start a new thread, and I'll be happy to make the full comparison. I hope you first realize, though, that CC-BY-SA is not the GPL. CC-BY-SA does not require you to distribute source code when you distribute binaries. It is not *intended* to require that. And anyone who takes the time to read the simple one page description of CC-BY-SA ought to know that. There is no way everyone is going to be happy as a result of this, that's human nature, people are influenced and motivated by various things, a lot of people agree with the GPL, at lot of people don't which is why you end up with others using BSD and other similar licenses. I agree with the GPL. There's little chance I'm going to release my software under the BSD license. But software isn't geodata. If you want to push your data as PD that's fine, tag the change set as PD when you upload and problem solved then such data can be extracted regardless what other data is licensed as then everyone is happy, of course this only counts in countries that have a notion of PD otherwise people in those countries wouldn't be able to use such data either. Ain't it grand having lawyers make laws? :) Actually, I've decided I'm not going to release my data as PD. I prefer copyleft. I prefer CC-BY-SA. It keeps people from taking my data and incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses. Like ODbL.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
