[odc-discuss] Interview with Open Street Map's Steve Coast about relicensing and ODbL

Wed Jun 22 12:58:39 UTC 2011

On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> On 22/06/11 10:46, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>> ODbL's Produced Work is a well thought out answer to this and I would
>> certainly not support OSM moving to any licence that did not retain such a
>> concept.

ODbL does have differences with BY-SA that go beyond handling of sui
generis database rights. Re contract layer, we'll see how that plays
out. To me, provision of ~source (4.6 Access to Derivative Databases)
is the biggest one, but IANAL (repeat below). I'd wildly guess that
produced works could be/have been addressed as an additional
permission (a la GPL exceptions) rather than requiring incompatible
copyleft.

> A hack that might address this is allowing BY-SA to apply either to the
> database or to its contents. If it applied to the contents, both the
> share-alike and the attribution would apply to extracts from the database.
> If it applied to the database, only the attribution requirement would apply
> to extracts. The latter would approximate the ODbL. BY-SA on the DB with CC0
> on the content would approximate ODbL/DbCL.

No allowing needs to be done; the licensor can already say exactly
what they're licensing. Documentation of how this ought be done in
this case, yes.

> The contract element would be lost, though, despite the fact that contract
> law makes more sense for a "share-alike" licence than a "copyleft" one.

I'm not sure which distinction you're drawing between share alike and
copyleft and would be curious to know why you think contract makes
more sense for former.

Mike

-- 
https://creativecommons.net/ml