[OSM-legal-talk] ODBL enforcement: contract law and remedies

[Erik Johansson]

On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/28/09, Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com> wrote:
>> Matt Amos <zerebubuth at ...> writes:
>>
>>>let's assume some data are taken and modified and used to generate
>>>tiles. the ODbL would require that the modified data are made
>>>available, regardless of the license of the tiles. if the data were
>>>effectively-PD then there would be no requirement to make the modified
>>>data available (although i guess it would be allowable to trace the
>>>tiles, subject to the ToS of the site). likewise, CC BY-SA requires
>>>that the tiles are CC BY-SA, but requires nothing regarding the
>>>redistribution of the data.
>>
>> You're right.  In a way this is like the source code requirement of
>> copyleft licences for computer software.  So it's one case where
>> the ODBL gives a stronger share-alike than CC-BY-SA.  (I would check,
>> however, that this isn't going to slow the uptake of OSM by sites which
>> want to draw their own maps showing houses for sale, etc.  They would
>> not be happy having to publish that additional data because it could
>> be considered a Derived Database under the ODBL.)
>
> we had a long thread on this a couple of weeks ago (ODbL "virality"
> questions) from which i think the consensus was that linking OSM data
> with data from independent sources creates a collective database,
> rather than a single derivative database.

No that was what The PD/Fairhurst Doctrine states. ODBL seems to mean
that we loose almost everything that is share-alike with the current
license if we don't interpret the collective database loop hole a lot
harder than what The PD Doctrine does.