[OSM-legal-talk] "A Creative Commons iCommons license"
richard at systemed.net
Sat Feb 28 11:34:00 GMT 2009
> It does have a share alike clause but it is different from the CC one.
> As it gives the user fewer rights it's hard to see how it would be
In the analogue case, GFDL's share-alike is different from CC-BY-SA's, yet
the relicensing happened. The point is that "compatible" can actually be
decided by CC themselves.
This thing about ODbL giving the user "fewer rights" is an absolute canard
(quack). ODbL is not weaker copyleft than CC-BY-SA, it's simply expressed in
a way that is relevant to data. It provides the user with protection in
jurisdictions where copyright may not apply to data: CC-BY-SA doesn't. It
requires the producer of a derivative to publish the source: CC-BY-SA
Against this, ODbL clearly defines where the boundaries of sharealike lie in
relation to data. In some particular cases this could be viewed as "fewer
rights". I actually don't see it that way. CC-BY-SA's application to data is
so unclear that the user effectively abrogates their rights in favour of the
guys with the best lawyers, who can pay to have it interpreted their way.
That isn't, by any stretch, more rights than ODbL - unless you're Google.
> It does have an attribution clause but it is different from the CC one.
> The attribution is not to the original author. Again fewer rights for
> the contributor.
Again, that's not true. ODbL simply says in 4.2c that you must "c. Keep
intact any copyright or Database Right notices and notices that refer to
this Licence". That provides attribution to the copyright/db right holder,
i.e. the original author.
> Database rights only exist for collections. A single person's
> may not, on its own, be a database.
That's definitely not true. A single person's contribution may certainly be
a database. The EU database right legislation makes no requirement for
multiple authorship and neither does ODbL.
> The only proposal I've seen, and it
> appears to be a bit of an afterthought, is that contributors assign away
> *all* their rights by agreeing to FIL.
> I wonder if we are all discussing the wrong license? The FIL seems to be
> a much more important consideration for contributors than the ODbL.
I definitely agree (yay) that the ODbL/FIL relationship needs much more
discussion than it's had to date.
I believe Jordan's original intent (but he can say this much better than me,
and contradict me if necessary) was that users' contributions could
individually be licensed under ODbL. Your contributions would be ODbL. My
contributions would be ODbL. OSM would aggregate them into one big ODbL
database. The multiple-attribution question is answered either by "a
location (such as a relevant directory) where a user would be likely to look
for it" (4.2d) being www.openstreetmap.org - or by users agreeing, as a
condition of contributing to OSM, that they choose not to place any
copyright or database right _notices_ on their contribution other than a
reference to ODbL.
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22261200.html
Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the legal-talk