<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Mike Collinson <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mike@ayeltd.biz">mike@ayeltd.biz</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
At 10:11 AM 13/08/2010, 80n wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:47
PM, David Groom
<<a href="mailto:reviews@pacific-rim.net" target="_blank">reviews@pacific-rim.net</a>
> wrote:<br>
<dl>
<dd>b) Ignoring the Yahoo data, but taking any data that may have had a
PD or CC-BY-SA clause that has be used in import, since these are general
permissions given and they do not explicitly mention granting rights to
use in OSM, I cant possible agree that I have EXPLICIT permission to use
them. I have permission by virtue of they are PD or CC-BY-SA, but not
EXPLICIT permission to do so.<br><br>
</dd></dl><br>
David, I don't think that CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL, nor with the
Contributor Terms. If you have added content that is licensed under
CC-BY-SA you cannot agree to the Contrbutor Terms. <br><br>
I'm sure you know that but your statement above suggests that CC-BY-SA is
compatible with OBdL and CT. It is not.</blockquote><br>
I have moved this from "[OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing
begins" to legal talk as it is worth further discussion in
view of dilemmas faced by our Australian community. I understand
that CC-BY-SA is currently a preferred vehicle for releasing government
data. I am inclined to agree with 80n, though in the context that
CC-BY-SA licenses on data are just too potentially broad in their
virality. I present this for the purposes of discussion and do not see my
conclusions as immutable. I focus on Share-Alike, though Attribution is
also a consideration.<br><br></div></blockquote><div><br>In order to submit CC-BY-SA under the contributor terms you need to give OSMF rights that you don't possess. <br><br>CC-BY-SA does not grant you "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright" and so you can't pass that right on to OSMF. Its as simple as that isn't it?<br>
<br><br>80n<br><br><br><br><br> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div>
I would also like to note that I am having an email dialogue with Ben
Last of NearMap of Australia
(<a href="http://www.nearmap.com/" target="_blank">
http://www.nearmap.com</a>). They allow use of their
PhotoMaps to derive information (e.g. StreetMap data) under a Creative
Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence. They are being most
cordial and helpful. They are submitting the ODbL for legal review from
their own perspective. I hope they will share some of the
conclusions they reach, both for the perspective and the authoritative
opinion.<br><br>
----------------------<br><br>
To grossly paraphrase, a GNU type software license it works like
this:<br><br>
Write a word processor --X--> Write a book with the
software.<br><br>
Virality remains in the software, it is NOT transmitted to the book. It
IS possible to use other non-compatible software to make the book.
But if the software is improved to write the book and software is
published, then software improvements must be available Share
Alike.<br><br>
ODbL is slightly stronger:<br><br>
Create map data --X--> Make a map<br><br>
Virality remains in the data, it is not transmitted to the map except in
reverse engineering out the data. It is possible to use other
non-compatible data to make the map under certain conditions. But
if the data is improved and the map or the data is published, then data
improvements must be available Share Alike.<br><br>
But if CC-BY-SA license is used to try on information rather than the
virus can potentially just keep on going. It all depends on what the
original publisher feels they want to exert(?).<br><br>
Here is a real dilemma being faced by the Australian community:<br><br>
Aerial imagery under CC-BY-SA -----> Create map data with some
imagery tracing -----> Pull out a single lat/lon and put it in a book;
make a map; ...<br><br>
ODbL breaks the chain at the second "----->", either because
the extract is not substantial or because the right-hand item is a
Produced Work. CC-BY-SA does not, or at least you'll need to clarify with
the original publisher(?).<br><br>
Personal conclusion: The CC-BY-SA license are great on fully creative
works. It was never intended to be applied to highly factual data
and information, and if it is, it is vague and confusing. If you
believe strongly in pandemic virality, then it is a good
thing. If you believe that all the chain of Share-Alike and
Attribution should be far more constrained, then it is just dangerous and
should be avoided. Which is why most of us want to move away from it as
our own license. Our primary goal is disseminating data we collect
ourselves.<br><br>
Mike<br><br>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
legal-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org">legal-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk" target="_blank">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>