[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL for the DB; what about the contents?
frederik at remote.org
Thu Oct 9 15:54:54 BST 2008
Simon Ward wrote:
> Your argument would also suggest that there is no need for the factual
Yes there is; it would protect users who extract a non-substantial
amount of data against any claims from anybody.
> This comes down to PD vs permissive vs share-alike, and I’ve seen this
> be discussed to bits in the past.
Yes, and the ODBL/Factual combo is a good compromise in that it is
basically an PD for non-substantial things and basically an
attribution-only license for "experiences" created from OSM data; it
only has full share-alike for the bits that are of interest to us: the
data. Remember that we're a project creating a free world map, not a
project creating a free world.
In my eyes what you're proposing would not even work. The whole idea
behind the new license is that if you make some kind of artistic work or
so based on OSM data, you can have full copyright with any license you
want on the resulting work, you only have to share-alike the data base
behind it. I thought that there was a consensus that this is what we
want: Let the T-Shirt designer have ownership of his OSM-based T-Shirt
design, as long as we get the data improvements he made to achieve this.
Now if you start opening up the possibility that individual data items
might themselves be under a share-alike license, how can the T-Shirt
designer own his creative work? He would have to make the T-Shirt design
share-alike just as it is now. That basically breaks everything that is
good about the new license.
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
More information about the legal-talk