[OSM-legal-talk] Open Data Commons Database Licence
Jordan S Hatcher
jordan at opencontentlawyer.com
Thu Sep 27 15:10:41 BST 2007
On 27 Sep 2007, at 10:46, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
>> There was some mention of attribution on the list, and I wanted to
>> clarify that in general, this is not an 'attribution' licence in the
>> sense that derivative databases must attribute to the original
>> database. It does however require the notice mentioned in Section
>> 4.3, which requires that output of data carry a notice as to source.
> As I read it, 4.2.b (derivative databases) says you must "Keep intact
> any copyright or Database Right notices for the Database"; and 4.3
> (combined output) says "You must include a notice reasonably
> calculated to make users of the integrated experience aware that
> content was obtained from the Database and that the Database is
> available under this Licence".
> So under 4.2.b a user would have to say "(c) OpenStreetMap
> (www.openstreetmap.org)", and under 4.3 "This map contains information
> from OpenStreetMap (www.openstreetmap.org) made available here under
> the ODCL". That's as much attribution as we get at the moment, so it
> seems to work.
Absolutely -- there is attribution, it is just not at the level of a
CC attribution licence.
See for example the Scottish licence:
2.3 You must, if you publish or distribute the Work or any Derivative
Work to anyone else in any
way, give reasonable credit to the Original Author as follows:
by giving the name of the Original Author if that has been supplied;
or a pseudonym
if that has been supplied instead; and/or the name of any other
person if that has
been supplied for attribution in place of the Original Author;
by giving the title of the Work if that has been supplied;b.
by giving the Uniform Resource Identifier of the Work if that has
been supplied, but
you need not do so if this does not refer to its copyright terms or
to its licensing
in the case of a Derivative Work, by identifying how the Work has
been used (for
example, "French translation of the Work by X", or "Screenplay based
work by X"); and
in the case of a Derivative Work or a Collective Work, placing that
credit in the same
place, and at least as prominently, as any comparable authorship credit.
But, if what you are publishing or distributing is a Derivative Work
or a Collective Work, you
must remove any of these credits if you are asked to do so by the
Licensor and if it is
practicable to do so.
> On a personal angle, 4.4.c ("if hyperlinks are not possible, You must
> include the plain text of the required URI’s with the above notice")
> is a bit prescriptive for print uses. It would be better to add an
> easement equivalent to 4.2.c ("If it is not possible... then You must
> include the notice in a location... where a user would be likely to
> look for it."). A big long URL is too large for most
> newspaper/magazine credits, but all copyright notices are usually
> gathered together in a single flannel panel for the publication which
> neatly works as "a location where a user would be likely to look for
4.3 a is an example of a notice that meets the requirement of 4.3 and
so I believe that the situation that you mention is covered. The
only requirement is:
"However, You must include a notice reasonably calculated to make
users of the integrated experience aware that content was obtained
from the Database and that the Database is available under this
There is no absolute requirement that a really long URI be printed.
> Incidentally, I'm interested in the comment that "the policy of CC for
> future versions of the licences in Europe, will be to waive any
> Database Rights". So we're moving from "CC-BY-SA 2.0 probably not
> valid for OSM" to "CC-BY-SA 4.0 definitely not valid for OSM". ;)
That's probably correct though I'd have to look at the issue a bit
more in depth. Incidentally I'm on the CC Scotland team and am a
little wary of a policy of 'waiving' the rights mostly because I want
to make sure that for people who mutliple licence data (think of the
MySQL business model) that they don't totally waive a set of rights
that they may rely on in another context.
Thanks for the comments.
Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM
jordan at opencontentlawyer dot com
IP/IT Blog: http://twitchgamer.net
Usage of Creative Commons by cultural heritage organisations
"The Impact of Free Trade Agreements on Information Technology Based
More information about the legal-talk