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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Mike Collinson wrote:
> The new text is available at
> http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ and includes "diff"
> versions so that you can see clearly what changes are made.

With 0.9, we identified the problem of "produced works" not being 
releasable under CC-BY-SA (or any other share-alike license, say GFDL or 
even GPL where included in software) because of the reverse engineering 
clause which collides with the "no restrictions may be added" clause in 
these share-alike licenses. I think that most of us were quite clear 
that this would be a total show stopper, and several suggestions were 
made to overcome the problem.

Can someone explain how this has been resolved? I see that the 1.0 
release candidate has a provision to name someone who decides which 
licenses are deemed compatible, but it seems to me that this only 
applies to databases, not produced works.

As I understand it, the follwoing would have to happen to be able to 
release a produced work under CC-BY-SA with ODbL RC 1.0:

* When applying the ODbL, OSMF is authorized to define catalogue of 
compatible licenses;

* OSMF decrees that CC-BY-SA is compatible;

* User makes a derived database by copying all of OSM, or a part of it, 
and says "this copy is now CC-BY-SA, not ODbL"

* User is then able to create a produced work from his CC-BY-SA copy of 
the database and license that produced work CC-BY-SA

Am I reading this correctly? I think this would overcome the problem, 
but it would effectively dual-license the whole of OSM under ODbL and 
CC-BY-SA. Has that been discussed and found to be a good idea?

Or does OSMF not have the intention of declaring CC-BY-SA a compatible 
license, and if not, how will CC-BY-SA licensed produced works be made 
possible?

Bye
Frederik

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