[odc-discuss] ODbL: Does publishing Produced Work from Derivative Database trigger Derivative Database ShareAlike?

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
> I've just sent through an email explaining my approach to answering  
> these questions.  In an effort to test out the licence and improve it,  
> I'm going to turn this around and ask you (Richard W), what do you  
> think? Where would you draw the arguments for applying the ShareAlike  
> clause to a Produced Work from a Derivative Database?

No. That's not what we are talking about.

We are not requesting the Produced Work to be ShareAlike.

We are requesting that the interim derived database that only sits on 
your hard disk because you had to make it in the process of creating a 
Produced Work be ShareAlike.

This is our major selling point for the application of ODbL in OSM: To 
those who say that freedom is reduced by not making Produced Works 
ShareAlike, we answer: True, but Produced Works are not what we're 
after, we're after the data; and here ODbL gives us something that the 
old CC-BY-SA didn't.

My standard example:

Guy takes OSM data for London, adds a few streets, prints nice T-Shirt, 
sells it.

Under CC-BY-SA, he can keep the added streets but has to make the 
T-Shirt available under ShareAlike.

Under ODbL, at least that was our reading of the previous draft, the guy 
does not have to make the T-Shirt design available, but he has to share 
the added streets.

The reading of the license behind this was: If you publicly use a 
derivative database then you have to share that database; and making a 
Produced Work from a derivative database constitutes using it.

This was an idea that rung well with many in the OSM community and had 
the potential to overcome the "but Produced Works are not ShareAlike" 
criticism.

I am not aware of *anyone* in OSM who did *not* read it that way. All of 
us always said "ODbL scales back on the protection of Produced Works but 
gives us more in terms of data, and this is exactly what we want." (Well 
at least those in favour of the license said this.)

By changing the "Use" to "Convey" and defining that "Convey" does not 
happen during the production of a Produced Work, this very basic premise 
is simply cancelled; with the current wording, someone can take London 
data from OSM, fill in all the gaps, print and sell his very own A-Z 
from it *without* having to share the filled gaps. This would never, 
ever be accepted by the OSM community.

I am still astonished how such a major change could have slipped 
through, and somewhat waiting for someone to tell me this is not true! 
For the best part of the previous year I have argued for ODbL within OSM 
using examples like the above T-Shirt example, and I know others have, 
too. If it should turn out that I have been totally misreading the ODbL 
intention then I will have to say sorry to a *large* number of people.

Bye
Frederik