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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

80n wrote:
> Are ODbL Produced Works really anti-share alike or is there some subtlety
> that I have missed?

You could also say that share-alike licenses are 
"anti-database-protection" or that CC-BY-SA is "anti-CC-BY-SA-NC". Given 
that "anti..." is very often used to express that something was 
explicitly made to act or work against something, we should perhaps drop 
the usage of "anti" here and, more neutrally, just ask for compatibility.

I see the same problem you are seeing and I had added a section about 
this problem in

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Suggested_Changes#The_.22licensing_Produced_Works.22_problem

yesterday. (I'm a bit miffed that neither you nor any of the respondents 
seem to follow relevant stuff on the Wiki. Or well, maybe you all did 
and just found my contribution not worthy of note. Sigh.) In that 
section, I make two concrete suggestions how to remedy this; one being 
the explicit exception of a list of share-alike licenses from the 
reverse engineering clause, the other being a clarification of the ODbL 
reverse engineering clause to *only* work for those cases where the 
whole thing happens in an orchestrated fashion (i.e. someone sets up a 
tile server with the sole purpose of then paying hundreds of people to 
trace data off of it).

Both solutions are not 100% satisfactory but please keep in mind that we 
currently have a situation where *one* of a number of share-alike 
licenses has been selected and we are compatible to *none* of the 
others, so this can hardly be said to be any better. I think that 
compatibility of ODbL Produced Works with share-alike licenses is an 
absolute "must" and I'm prepared to make some concessions regarding the 
protection of our data to achieve this.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"