On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Rob Myers <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rob@robmyers.org">rob@robmyers.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:59:52 -0400, Anthony <<a href="mailto:osm@inbox.org">osm@inbox.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> How?<br>
<br>
By acknowledging their existence and using them against themselves.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I don't follow.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">> Upgrading from BY-SA 2.0 to BY-SA 2.5 is trivial.<br>
<br>
</div>Relicencing derivative works is trivial.<br>
<br>
Getting the approval of every OSM user to approve a change of attribution<br>
isn't. There are major institutional contributions to OSM that might not be<br>
able to be re-attributed without great effort. And some people (mistakenly)<br>
regard that attribution as a "right".<br>
<br>
So changing attribution is comparably difficult to relicencing.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Changing attribution is comparably difficult to relicensing under the ODbL? I'm sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I don't follow.</div>
<div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">> Personally I disagree with that hallucination. A mash-up is a<br>
derivative<br>
> work. In fact, I'd say it's pretty much the quintessential example of<br>
the<br>
> derivative work.<br>
<br>
</div>I agree with you. But the community standards of OSM don't seem to.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>But that just doesn't make any logical sense. If a mash-up isn't a derivative work, then the database might as well be PD (or CC-BY).</div>
<div><br></div><div>If produced works aren't protected, then the data isn't protected, because the data is *contained within* the produced works.</div><div><br></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Rob Myers <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rob@robmyers.org">rob@robmyers.org</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; ">
<div class="im">On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 12:03:17 -0400, Anthony <<a href="mailto:osm@inbox.org">osm@inbox.org</a>> wrote:<br>><br>>As I've asked<br>> several times now, and never gotten a response, what stops someone from<br>
> taking a Produced Work released under CC-BY and extracting the data back<br>> out<br>> of the Produced Work, thereby obtaining the data under CC-BY.<br><br></div>Presumably the same thing that prevents the copyright on a DVD you copy<br>
off a TV screen from evaporating when you burn it back to DVD. (I mention<br>copyright as BY is a copyright licence.)<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>If that DVD were released under ODbL, and the copy were released (legally) under CC-BY, you might have a point.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); border-left-style: solid; padding-left: 1ex; ">
BY-SA is a more interesting case as the derivative work must also be<br>covered by BY-SA.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Indeed. What's the position of the OSMF and/or the LWG on this one? Can CC-BY-SA data be combined with ODbL data to create a produced work? Or are proprietary produced works allowed, but non-ODbL copylefted produced works disallowed?</div>
</div></div></div>