[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL RC and share-alike licensing of Produced Works
80n80n at gmail.com
Tue Jun 9 08:10:41 BST 2009
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,
> >> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk