[OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime

[Jordan S Hatcher]

On 4 Feb 2008, at 14:47, Richard Fairhurst wrote:

> Ivan Sanchez Ortega wrote:
>> I don't quite understand the difference between ODL-factual
>> and Public Domain.
>>
>> I mean, what would be different if, instead of ODL-DB + ODL-factual,
>> we used ODL-DB + PD ???
>
> This would certainly be an option. However, ODC-Factual is an explicit
> grant of rights and is applicable in countries where there is no
> formal concept of the public domain.

To clarify:

The Factual Information Licence is meant to cover the case of  
Australia, where it is my understanding that factual information  
collected together can be held to have a copyright (under the Telstra  
case). Most other legal systems would not give copyright for a  
telephone directory arranged in a alphabetical order. The FIL  
basically says that:
-- This is factual data
-- I don't claim copyright over it
-- But if I have any rights, you can have them under a BSD/MIT style  
licence.

The Database Licence is meant to operate over the database as a whole  
and not apply directly to its contents, so that it could be used for  
something like Freebase, which collects public domain info with GFDL  
licensed Wikipedia content.

<http://freebase.com>

That way if you have contents with all sorts of different rights you  
can let those rights govern those objects, and the DBL govern the  
database as a whole.

You could use the CC Public Domain tool instead of the FIL.

Thanks!

~Jordan

____
Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM

jordan at opencontentlawyer dot com
OC Blog: http://opencontentlawyer.com
IP/IT Blog: http://twitchgamer.net

Open Data Commons
<http://opendatacommons.org>

Usage of Creative Commons by cultural heritage organisations
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/studies/cc2007