[OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?

[Rob Myers]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:

> 1. Creative Commons licences define "Work" (which you're quoting in the case
> of 4a) as "the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of
> this License" (1e). I.e., as we know by now, CC-BY-SA is defined and
> enforced by copyright.

That's a very good point.

The Dutch CC licences covered database right as well, I don't know if
they still do.

> So 4a may not, in my reading, forbid conditions being added by contract or
> database right, because these are simply outside the scope of the CC
> licence.

Secion 6.2 of BY-SA UK 2.0 says:

"This Licence constitutes the entire Licence Agreement between the
parties with respect to the Work licensed here."

But as you point out, the work is the *copyrighted* work.

This kind of non-copyright control is something that the GPL has
worked very hard to avoid. Patents, trademarks, trade secrets, DRM Law
and Tivoisation are all excluded by the GPL. It might not be good to
set the opposite precedent for BY-SA.

> Very often CC-BY-SA items will be conveyed with contractual
> restrictions: Andy A cited the other day that the cycle map has its own Ts &
> Cs, for example.

Given 6.2 that doesn't sound right where they are additional
conditions for the *copyrighted* work or that cover the BY-SA part of
a collective work.

- Rob.