[OSM-legal-talk] Question on derived datasets - old license and proposed license...

[Simon Ward]

On Fri, Oct 10, 2008 at 12:49:32AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2008 at 06:20:32PM +0200, Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> >> I cannot speak for everyone, but I do think that the general idea is to make 
> >> the ODbL work like a copyleft license (i.e. you're required to distribute 
> >> the "source" data only to the people you distribute the maps to). You'll have 
> >> to wait for the final, revised version to be sure.
> > 
> > I’d rather not wait for a less than acceptable licence.  I’d like to
> > sort out any problems beforehand.
> > 
> > For me, allowing my contributions to be distributed without a
> > share-alike is going to take some pretty damn good convincing.
> 
> The issue that you are quoting Ivan with is not a 
> share-alike-or-not-share-alike question. It is the question of whom you 
> have to share with. The *current* license (and also the usual GNU 
> licenses) say that if you give a derived product to X, you also have to 
> give X the source code and the rights to pass it on etc. (and X *might* 
> then choose to make everything public - mut he might also not).
> 
> The propsed license text - and I believe that is by accident rather than 
> by design - always talks about the public: If you give THE PUBLIC a 
> derived product you also have to etc.etc., but what if you give it only 
> to X?

I wasn’t specific enough in my quotation.  What I should have quoted
was:

    “You'll have to wait for the final, revised version to be sure.”

Hope that makes my statement more clear.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20081009/a917b28d/attachment.pgp>