[OSM-legal-talk] "A Creative Commons iCommons license"

[80n]

On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 2:41 PM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>wrote:

>
> 80n wrote:
> > No.  CC-BY-SA does not have a class of derivative works that are not
> > share alike.  ODbL does.
>
> No it doesn't, that's the entire point of what I said. (Is this the
> five-minute argument or the full half-hour?) This is what 4.7 in ODbL is
> all
> about. The data is still "protected", if that's the kind of language you
> like, by share-alike at all times.
>

Let's recap.  This thread started with your question about whether it would
be feasible to just ask CC to agree that ODbL was a compatible license and
avoid all the trouble of having to bother contributors with lots of boring
legal stuff.

I replied by suggesting that the ODbL license is not compatible and in some
cases removes rights that the contributor currently has.

So let's stay focussed not on the additional protections that ODbL offers,
but on those rights that it takes away.

If I create a nice rendering of some OSM data under the current license it
is a derivative work that is covered by CC and both the share-alike and
attribution clauses explicitly apply to it.

If I create the same nice rendering under the ODbL then it is classed as a
Produced Work.  A produced work is subject to attribution (4.3) but is not
subject to share alike (4.5b).

Since share alike is a key part of the CC-BY-SA license this is a clear
example of a case where a contributors rights are less in the ODbL than in
CC-BY-SA.  That's why it would be very unlikely that CC would agree to class
ODbL as a "compatible" license.  Because it isn't compatible.



>
> > As I understand it Jordan is not our lawyer and cannot advise us on
> > whether or not we should use the FIL.
>
> So now I am utterly confused.
>
> Some people called Wilson Sonsini have advised us to use ODbL in a manner
> which is not, AIUI, the manner recommended by the licence co-author, who
> one
> would presume understands these things.
>

Well Jordan is the author of the FIL and we can assume he did it for a
reason.  It is published adjacent to the ODbL license on a web-site that is
managed by Jordan, so I think there are some clues there.

It's quite possible that Jordan had a different opinion a year ago when all
this kicked off.



>
> And here I am debating with an OSMF board member who appears to be arguing
> _against_ the licence being recommended by OSMF.
>
> What on earth is going on?


I'm neither argueing for or against the license.  I'm engaging in a
conversation that I hope will help me, and others, to better understand the
implications of the new license.  Most board members have only recently seen
a copy of the license so they have no more knowledge about it than anyone
else.

We will be making a decision on whether to recommend it to OSMF membership
at our board meeting on March 31st and I'm sure that all the board members
will be paying close attention to the discussions on these various forums
between now and then.  I doubt any board member would put their name to the
license without careful consideration.

And for the record, I haven't spent enough time with the license yet to know
which way I might go on it.

80n



>
>
> Richard
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://www.nabble.com/%22A-Creative-Commons-iCommons-license%22-tp22260709p22262758.html
> Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at
> Nabble.com.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20090228/05d8b5c5/attachment.html>