[odc-discuss] ODbL /BY-SA

Tue Jul 27 21:08:15 UTC 2010

On 07/27/2010 06:12 PM, Rufus Pollock wrote:
>
> First, I should point this clause abut "You Publicly Use a Produced
> Work from a Derivative DB" is sort of Affero like:
>
> it is intended to stop people using a derivative DB to make "produced
> works" (e.g. map images) for some useful public service but not making
> that derivative DB publicly available.

I like the Affero comparison and I will now use that instead of 
upsetting people by comparing the licence to BY-SA. ;-)

> If *You* (creator of produced work) make the map available online you
> must also make the derivative DB you made it with available. However,
> you are not required to impose any kind of licensing condition on the
> produced work (that's up to *You*) and downstream users of the
> produced work (not *You*) are bound by that license not the ODbL.

Great, that makes sense.

Under section 4.3 of ODbL 1.0, you have to attach a notice to the 
Produced Work letting recipients know where they can download the database.

If the Produced Work is copyleft/share-alike/reciprocal licenced, will 
the offer apply to derivative works/adaptations of the Produced Work?

So if I make a derivative of a map you make from OSM data, are you still 
liable to provide the data to recipients of my derivative?

> So, for example, a rendered map from OSM could be incorporated into
> wikipedia (or anywhere else for that matter) without any problem -- or
> any need to even think about the ODbL -- as the ODbL does not impose
> any restrictions on the Produced Work. (Assuming of course that the
> rendered map has been licensed appropriately by its creator -- but
> that choice of license is not affected by the ODbL ...)

So in the case of copyleft Produced Works there's two parallel 
distribution graphs of derivative databases and derivatives of Produced 
Works, and the licences don't interact due to the way that downstream 
users of Produced Works are not bound by the ODbL.

Thanks.

- Rob.