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

Henk Hoff osm at toffehoff.nl
Mon Jun 8 23:46:15 BST 2009


Peter Millar schreef:
>   
>> ----- 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
>>
>>
>>     
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> 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
>  share-alike licence?
>
> Peter
>
>
>
>   
It is proposed to removed the clause 4.7 altogether, because it suits no 
purpose with the addition of derivative databases being public when the 
produced work is also public.
Why bother to do all the reverse engineering when the data with which 
the produced work is made is already freely available? In the RC1 this 
was not the case.

So if you have a Produced Work based on:
- the database: no need for reverse engineering since the database is 
freely available
- a derivative database: no need for reverse engineering since 
derivative database is freely available (= new addition)
- a collective database: the reverse engineering clause was not 
applicable on the whole collective database, only the (derivative) 
database part.

If the produced work is a database (or acts like it) than that's just 
another derivative database in terms of ODbL.


Cheers,
Henk Hoff




More information about the legal-talk mailing list