[OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?
deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Mon Dec 14 00:20:52 GMT 2009
2009/12/14 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
> If the the data is not copyrightable, it is PD, and no "license" is going to
> magically make it not PD.
Not all legal systems are derived from the British/Common Law legal
system, there are others that instead of having all rights by default
you only have rights if granted them.
> For the areas where geodata is not copyrightable, CC-BY-SA isn't needed.
You mean cc-by-sa doesn't apply, which is the whole point, some want
SA to apply regardless if cc-by-sa is able to take effect or not.
> Well, it's different from the GPL because it uses contract law, and not just
> copyright law. As explained in the GPL: "The licenses for most software
> and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share
> and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General Public License is
> intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a
> program--to make sure it remains free software for all its users." The ODbL
> falls into the former category of "licenses".
I realise the ODBL doesn't just use copyright law, I thought that was
kinda the point, copyright law may not be useful everywhere so other
mechanisms had to be thought up.
> The ODbL *is* somewhat more similar to the GPL than it is to CC-BY-SA. But
> CC-BY-SA was chosen as the license for OSM, not the GPL. So stop saying the
> ODbL is in the same spirit as CC-BY-SA. Claim it's in the same spirit as
> the GPL, and then we can have that discussion.
As I stated, I never said I agreed with ODBL, I agreed with the intent
behind it. Also out of curiosity why are you so adamantly against
people being required to give back to the community if you are already
supporting this community? IN fact having such requirements means you
will benefit from improvements others contribute.
> I agree with the GPL. There's little chance I'm going to release my
> software under the BSD license. But software isn't geodata.
Again, it's the intent, not the specific license that I agree with at
present, I won't be able to have this all sorted out till into the new
year at the earliest because it's kind of too close to christmas and
people are going on holidays etc.
> Actually, I've decided I'm not going to release my data as PD. I prefer
> copyleft. I prefer CC-BY-SA. It keeps people from taking my data and
> incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses. Like ODbL.
Since you keep claiming cc-by-sa can't protect geodata then it can't
prevent your data from being re-licensed as ODBL, or did I miss
something in your comments?
More information about the talk