<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 18.06.2019 um 22:23 schrieb
Christoph Hormann via osmf-talk:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:201906182223.57031.chris_hormann@gmx.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">...
What you seem to be saying is that if i get a collection of map tiles
from osm.org (presumed CC-BY for the sake of this argument), OCR the
labels and detect and vectorize the buildings, fix a number of errors
in the names, add some missing buildings, re-render my own map from
them and publish that i have to allow others to use this map under
terms no more restrictive than CC-BY.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>No that wasn't my point, but, yes CC BY could be read as
requiring that (this is not a new restriction, 4.0 just makes it
textually clearer). Obviously there is a large number of caveats
to make wrt your example, but essentially you do need to allow
users to use the Licensed Material on CC BY terms, and my
understanding, from lengthy discussions with CC, is that that
would include Adapted Material. <br>
</p>
<p>Most of the time these discussions tend to centre around the
application of DRM. CC is absolutely crystal clear on that aspect
see
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-use-effective-technological-measures-such-as-drm-when-i-share-cc-licensed-material">https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-use-effective-technological-measures-such-as-drm-when-i-share-cc-licensed-material</a>
That in itself already implies a certain degree of copyleft/SA,
but the actual text of 2. a. 5. b. goes substantially further:<br>
</p>
<p><i><span style="text-decoration: underline;">No downstream
restrictions</span></i><i>. You may not offer or impose any
additional or different terms or conditions on, or apply any
Effective Technological Measures to, the Licensed Material if
doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights by any
recipient of the Licensed Material.</i> </p>
<p>In any case what I was actually pointing to was that if you
obtain data that is licensed on CC BY 4.0 terms and include it in
a database in which you have sui generis database rights, the
whole database is Adapted Material (see section 4 of CC BY 4.0)
and the above applies. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:201906182223.57031.chris_hormann@gmx.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">I doubt that because it would effectively defeat the whole purpose of
CC-BY to not be a share-alike license. </pre>
</blockquote>
<p>Tell that CC. <br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:201906182223.57031.chris_hormann@gmx.de">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">But even if that was the case
it would still not be functionally the same as the ODbL share-alike
requirement because CC-BY quite definitely does not require me to
publish intermediate data generated on the way to produce Adapted
Material - which the ODbL however does.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>The ODbL -never- requires you to publish (as in make available to
the general public) anything, further when creating a Derivative
Database it definitely does not require intermediate stages to be
made available.<br>
</p>
<p>The requirements of the ODbL are limited to:</p>
<p>- making a non-DRM version of a Derivative Database available to
recipients of the Derivative Database (if the database is not DRM
protected then this is moot), <br>
</p>
<p>- or alternatively providing the means to produce the Derivative
Database from the original database (note that the recipient of
the Derivative Database does not get to choose) <br>
</p>
<p>The same applies to a Derivative Database that was used to create
a Produced Work that is publicly used (CC BY would be more
restrictive in this case)<br>
</p>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:201906182223.57031.chris_hormann@gmx.de">
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>