[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL RC and share-alike licensing of Produced Works

Henk Hoff osm at toffehoff.nl
Sat Jun 6 01:54:07 BST 2009

SteveC schreef:
> On 6 May 2009, at 16:04, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> Hi,
>> With 0.9, we identified the problem of "produced works" not being
>> releasable under CC-BY-SA (or any other share-alike license, say  
>> GFDL or
>> even GPL where included in software) because of the reverse  
>> engineering
>> clause which collides with the "no restrictions may be added" clause  
>> in
>> these share-alike licenses. I think that most of us were quite clear
>> that this would be a total show stopper, and several suggestions were
>> made to overcome the problem.
>> Can someone explain how this has been resolved?
> I don't think it has. In our call with the OSMF lawyer today he wanted  
> more time to think this one through.
> Grant can you collate Frederiks thoughts for our next run through with  
> the OSMF lawyer?
> Best
> Steve
The LWG has mentioned this issue with ODC. There will be an RC2 of the 
ODbL in which this problem is solved. The change will be:

1. Add something on produced work/derivative db question along lines of:

"Any derivative Database used in the creation of a Publicly Available
Produced Work should be considered itself as Publicly Available and
therefore subject to Section 4.4."  (where Section 4.4 is the Share 
Alike clause)

2. Remove the reverse engineering clause.

With these two changes the focus of the SA-clause (within the ODbL) is 
on the data and not the produced work as a whole. It's basicly saying: 
we don't care what license you use for your Produced Work, as long as 
the derivative database that you used to create the Produced Work is 
publicly available under the ODbL license (or a by OSMF determined 
compatible one).

Since the data itself will have ODbL, we don't need the reverse 
engineering clause anymore on any produced work.

This also protects any copyright data that is used with a collective (!) 
database (since there is no reverse engineering applicable).

We (the LWG) think this is an adequate solution to the problem of having 
Produced Work released under another license.

Henk Hoff

More information about the legal-talk mailing list