[odc-discuss] About the responses on co-ment

Sat Mar 28 07:25:55 UTC 2009

Thanks for the email.

On 27 Mar 2009, at 17:44, <jean-christophe.haessig at dianosis.org> <jean-christophe.haessig at dianosis.org 
 > wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I've read the responses to my questions on co-ment, and I am not  
> satisfied
> with them.
>
> In fact, they are not even the start of a decent response. I am quite
> disappointed that my questions have been quickly dismissed and  
> tagged as
> "wontfix".

Co-ment is a bit limited in its means for discussion, and it's not the  
place to explain broadly how the ODbL functions, which was the root of  
your question -- that's for this list and thank you for posting here.   
Co-ment is more for specific comments on the text itself.

[Incidentally, had Thinh from CC asked, we would have directed his  
comment here as it wasn't about specific text either]

>
> Granted, I am not a native sepaker nor a lawyer and I might not have
> understood everything correctly, but I try hard to read that stuff  
> many
> times and try to understand it. I agree that a license can be somewhat
> complex to a reasonable level, maybe due to legal reasons it needs  
> to be
> written in "legalese".

I've worked really hard at not using "legalese" in this licence and it  
is, for example, much more readable and plain language than the bulk  
of the Creative Commons licences.  It may not be as plain language as  
these two examples:

<http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/>
<http://www.spokenword.ac.uk/using-audio-video/copyright/spoken-word-end-user-licence-agreement/ 
 >

... but it isn't even close to being full bore legalese.

> These complexities can be overcome by explaining
> what the text of the license rally says or implies. However I didn't  
> get
> such an explanation either.
>
> My concerns were mainly about moral rights. Most of the issues I  
> tried to
> point out are supposed to be handled by 4.2c, but first of all how  
> come
> that an important aspect is addressed in so few words which can be
> overlooked while the license expands lengthly on particular details?
>
> Next I didn't understand how apparently contradictorial texts  
> (waiver of
> moral rights and obligation of attribution) can be put in the same  
> license.
> The answer ("Because they are part of the same license!") really  
> doesn't
> help. Is it because the text that appears first is "stronger"? This  
> would
> be a legal feature but I feel it confusing that it says blue and  
> later red.

It isn't contradictory -- requiring the notice provisions in the  
licence 4.2 and 4.3 is not the same as the moral right to attribution.  
Moral rights only apply to natural persons, cover other rights besides  
attribution, and aren't harmonized like the economic rights.  It is  
even unclear how far moral rights would extend to databases, as they  
tend to be limited in national laws to more "artistic" works.  The  
notice provisions are conditions of use of the database, which is  
different than saying they are licensing a moral right.

Individual projects using the ODbL can, if they wish, try to ensure  
that individual contributors are mentioned "someplace", as you note in  
your other email, but if it isn't a "Copyright Notice", then it is  
just Contents (Data) in the Database.

>
> Finally there's my question about individual attribution. I feared  
> that the
> individual names of contributors can be removed, because it is only  
> asked
> to cite the original database. Again, 4.2c says that no copyright  
> notices
> must be removed, but how do user names in a database qualify as a  
> copyright
> notice?

They don't.

Thanks

~Jordan

>
> Thanks,
>
> JC
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> odc-discuss mailing list
> odc-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss

____
Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM

jordan [at] opencontentlawyer dot com

More details at:
<http://www.jordanhatcher.com>

Open Data at:
<http://www.opendatacommons.org>