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

[rob at robmyers.org]

Quoting Dair Grant <dair at refnum.com>:

> Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
>> Third case: there's an explicit clause (4.6) that a derivative
>> database protected by technological measures (such as one sealed in
>> a satnav) must also be made available in unrestricted form.
>
> This clause requires that the unrestricted copy be "at least as
> accessible to the recipient as a practical matter as the
> restricted Database".
>
> Is "accessible" here just a way to ensure that you can always
> get data out of a proprietary system (i.e., your satnav should
> come with a copy of the data in an easily parseable form like .osm)?
>
> Or is it to require that users be able to do the same things
> with the unrestricted copy as they can with the restricted copy
> (i.e., your satnav must accept .osm data as well as its
> proprietary version of that data)?

This is Parallel Distribution. We (the cc-licences mailing list)  
discussed it during the CC 3.0 public review. My personal opinion is  
that it is not a good idea because there is so much room for mischief  
in it.

Rather than adding the complexity and potential for locking people out  
that parallel distribution introduces, and the burden of maintaining  
it for re-distributors, it is better to simply prohibit technological  
protection measures being added by anyone other than the end user of  
the data when they install the previously unprotected data onto their  
own devices.

- Rob.