[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL RC and share-alike licensing of Produced Works
peter.millar at yahoo.com
Sun Jun 7 17:53:46 BST 2009
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Henk Hoff" <osm at toffehoff.nl>
> To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Sent: Saturday, 6 June, 2009 01:54:07 GMT +00:00 GMT Britain, Ireland, Portugal
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbL RC and share-alike licensing of Produced Works
> 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
I'm not sure I follow this. Is it proposed that the reverse engineering
clause is removed altogether or just in the context of a Produced Work with a
More information about the legal-talk