[odc-discuss] ODbL /BY-SA

Rob Myers rob at robmyers.org
Tue Jul 27 21:00:35 UTC 2010

On 07/27/2010 05:35 PM, Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
> I'm a bit confused -- do you mean and ODbL database that uses the Database Contents License (DbCL) for the contents?


> FYI the DbCL isn't in 2.1 -- it's still in 1.0, which is why I have the confusion.

I meant section 2.1 of the current DbCL, I'm sorry for being unclear.

> The DbCL is meant to only be an option if the ownership of ALL of the content of a database is homogenous

I hadn't considered that before but that makes sense, yes.

> If you take an ODbL database, and produce some content from it (i.e., run a query, out pops some data), this is a Produced Work.

Ah OK. I was assuming the Produced Work would be the image/map tile/etc. 
. To be clear: the Produced Work is a representation of a subset of data 
from the database in some kind of result set format?

> Thinking about it, that was probably too much legal background.  :-)

No, all this context is really helpful. :-)

> The really simple answer IMO is that Clause 8e addresses "the entire agreement" ONLY between the parties to that agreement, which in the case outlined above is the "mojo creator", who is the Licensor of their CC content under the CC-BY-SA license and not the ODbL licensor, who can be someone completely different and isn't a party to this agreement. It's the "mojo" that's licensed.

The mojo creator is the "You" of the ODbL, and the BY-SA downstream user 
is not the "You" of the ODbL.

> Otherwise you as licensor of a CC-BY-SA work could potentially be giving a *warranty that there was no other licenses over the work, which is something CC tried at one point and then dropped. It's a big deal because it means you would be on the hook for liability if you got it wrong.

Yes I think I remember that.


  - Rob.

More information about the odc-discuss mailing list