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

[80n]

On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> 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.
>

anti is indeed a loaded term, but this is an important problem that requires
serious discussion.



>
> 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.)


Sorry I only found your annotation at co-ment after I had posted here.


> 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.


Good point.  But one is better than none isn't it?


> 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.
>

Could we use community norms instead of the reverse engineering clause?



>
> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20090306/a065425f/attachment.html>