[odc-discuss] Interview with Open Street Map's Steve Coast about relicensing and ODbL
ml at creativecommons.org
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
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
> 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.
More information about the odc-discuss