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

[80n]

On Mon, Jun 8, 2009 at 11:46 PM, Henk Hoff <osm at toffehoff.nl> wrote:

> 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
>

The database is not freely available.  It is only available under OdbL.

The incentive to reverse engineer a produced work would be to create map
data that isn't constrained by the OdbL.  This modification would allow that
to happen.  This is unsatisfactory.

80n
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20090609/df29d33e/attachment.html>