[OSM-legal-talk] Q&A with a lawyer

[Jukka Rahkonen]

Frederik Ramm <frederik at ...> writes:


> 
> Now Peter's interpretation is: "Since the licensor has these powers, why 
> does not Fred simply take the database, publish a derived version of it 
> under ODbL and say "I as the licensor hereby exercise my powers under 
> section 4.4.d and decree that PD is a compatible license"?
> 
> The answer lies in 4.9 ("you may not sublicense the database"). We often 
> sloppily say that "if you make a derived work you must license it under 
> ODbL", but this is not the way ODbL is intended to work. The idea is 
> that the original licensor (OSMF) is the sole licensor throughout the 
> chain of use; and as such, only OSMF has all the rights of the licensor 
> (like defining the list of comptabile licenses).
> 
> This is very different from CC-BY-SA, where each time you make a derived 
> work and publish that, you are the licensee for upstream content and the 
> licensor for your derived work.

So why to discuss at all about "publishing derived versions under ODbL" if that
is effectivy meaningless?  The idea could then be written shortly: everything
that is not either "insubstantial" or "produced work" is derived database and
then the licensor is OSMF.  This does not give a lot for those who maintain
derived databases, despite the responsibility to make the derived database
available, but perhaps it is what we want.  Of course it is just the same if
nothing is changing, the mother OSM database and derivatives will use the same
well known license.  But what if OSMF is changing the license and somebody has
managed to base some business on top of derived database licensed under the old
ODbL license?  Dou you lawyers say that it is a sound basis for building a
business?  For me it would feel more fair if the derivatives could keep the old
license even if the mother OSM should update. Companies can then deside if they
would rather take the new license, or to make a fork.