[odc-discuss] (no subject)
andrewrens at gmail.com
Fri Mar 27 20:35:29 UTC 2015
Francis you are far from obtuse - my email was unintentionally misleading.
My apologies, I cut and paste from another email badly.
What I wanted to ask was this:
The legal text ofODC-By 1.0
"4.2 Notices. If You Publicly Convey this Database, any Derivative
Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, then You must:
a. Do so only under the terms of this License".
In other words users of By can only use By downstream. This is unlike CC By
in which users can use other licences downstream.
The legal text of the OBdL 1.0
4.2 Notices. If You Publicly Convey this Database, any Derivative Database,
or the Database as part of a Collective Database, then You must:
a. Do so only under the terms of this License or another license permitted
under Section 4.4;"
The text of both require the re-licensing under the originating licence.
ODbL gives some flexibility in 4.4 so is more flexible than By.
What am I missing?
On 27 March 2015 at 16:16, Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2015-03-27 20:02 GMT+00:00 Andrew Rens <andrewrens at gmail.com>:
>> I am new to this list although not new to okfn.
>> I am hoping to understand the apparent incompatibility of
>> ODC-By and the ODC-ODbL.
> They are intended to complement each other much as CC-BY and CC-BY-SA do.
>> As most of you know attribution only software licences such as the BSD's,
>> MIT etc and CC By licence do not require that derivatives should be
>> licensed under the same licence. However the ODC-ODbL has the following:
>> "4.2 Notices. If You Publicly Convey this Database, any Derivative
>> Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, then You must:
>> a. Do so only under the terms of this License;
>> b. Include a copy of this License or its Uniform Resource Identifier
>> (URI) with the Database or Derivative Database, including both in the
>> Database or Derivative Database and in any relevant documentation"
>> The result is that Derivative Databases must be licensed under the same
>> licence which is effectively a copyleft provision.
> Yes, precisely. ODC-ODbL is intended to be a copyleft licence, much like
> CC-BY-SA, though just slightly more strongly copyleft than CC-BY-SA v4.0.
>> But why then have ODC-ODbL?
> Do you mean, why have ODC-By?
> I am afraid I am obtusely unable to understand your question.
> Francis Davey
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the odc-discuss