[odc-discuss] Summary of main action items re ODbL license beta

[Rufus Pollock]

2009/3/25 Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:
> Rufus,
>
> Rufus Pollock wrote:
>>
>> Please find below a summary of what we take to be the main action
>> items in relation to the ODbL beta.
>
> On
>
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Suggested_Changes
>
> we (=OSM community) have identified four important things that we think need
> changing. I think you have addressed #1, #2, and #4 (but would very much
> like you to cross-check), but I cannot see any reference to our item #3
> which deals with the question whether a Produced Work can be released under
> an existing share-alike license or whether the reverse engineering clause
> does not permit that.
>
> I don't know whether this was an oversight on your part or whether nobody
> actually put this on co-ment. For your (and other mailing list readers')
> convenience I attach that item below in full.

Thanks, Frederik. You are right this should be in our list -- we had
noted and it was just an oversight to leave it out of the list. You
had actually posted yourself about this on co-ment:

It seems to me that because of 4.7, a Produced Work can never be put
under any of the established copyleft licenses (like CC-SA or GFDL)
because these licenses do not allow the addition of any restrictions;
and "by the way if you reverse engineer this into a database then the
following applies..." is just such a restriction. If true, then this
also means that data from an ODbL licensed database can never be
combined with anything that is CC-BY-SA or GFDL or so into a Produced
Work. Can something be done about this?

Our response:

Not quite sure about the reasoning here but we will think about this.
Would point out that none of those licenses [CC BY-SA, GFDL] give you
permission to infringe on other work. For example, suppose a CC by-sa
licensed play when performed produces something infringing (perhaps
play instructions involve performing some in copyright piece of
music). The CC by-sa license while saying you can publicly perform the
work does not mean you can do it if that would infringe on something
else governed by a different license.

> Note that item #3 carries three different "possible solutions", of which the
> third is basically "do nothing because it is not a problem". If ODC are of
> the opinion that this is a "do nothing because it is not a problem" issue
> then it would be very important to explain why.

Agreed. Thanks for all the info. This is under consideration.

> This issue has been hotly debated in OSM circles, e.g.
>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-March/002193.html
> ("Reverse-Engineering Maps and Share-Alike licenses").
>
> and
>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-March/002176.html
> ("Are produced works anti-share-alike").
>
> I'm not speaking for OSM officially but I think that it is extremely
> unlikely for the OSM community to settle on a license that would make it
> impossible to create a map where OSM data is combined with e.g. CC-BY-SA
> material. One of the key selling points of the new license, OSM-internally,
> has been that we have greater liberty with Produced Works; if that liberty
> would turn out to exclude share-alike, the promise would ring hollow.

Absolutely: I don't think there was in intention to prevent this
possibility -- the clause I think is clearly intended simply to
prevent an end-run around the license by someone recreating the DB
from a produced work (produced from the original DB) and then
releasing that without respecting the original license.

Regards,

Rufus

[snip]