[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL for the DB; what about the contents?

Frederik Ramm 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
> licence. 

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 mailing list