[OSM-legal-talk] viral attribution and ODbL
mapping at sheerman-chase.org.uk
Mon Apr 19 20:19:30 BST 2010
Frederik Ramm wrote:
> > 1) Create a produced work under ODbL term 4.3 with proper attribution
> > 2) Release produced work as public domain with proper attribution
> > 3) Strip off legal notices and attribution (which I think is
> allowed, />/ almost by definition, for public domain works)
> > 4) Republish as public domain or any other license, without attribution
> This is allowed.
What is the point in paragraph 4.3, if it can be easily side stepped?
And would the large data set import rights holders be happy if they
found out? If this paragraph is only for show, I suggest it is removed
for brevity and clarity.
> Im glad we don't because I consider attribution chains to be evil.
I agree, they are evil. My concern is ODbL wants to have its cake (to
have attribution) and to eat it (to allow public domain produced works),
which is a contradiction. Since I agree with your interpretation above,
I say we drop the attribution requirement completely, for produced works.
> > Second issue, which is probably the flip side of the same coin:
> people might be inclined to use works that use some sort of
> attribution license and incorperate them into OSM (this almost
> certainly has already happened, OS opendata, etc). The attribution
> must be included in any derived works.
> We cannot import such data, even today, because we cannot make sure
> that the attribution is included in all derived works.
That seems a bit of a sweeping statement, as far as I understand? Surely
our CC-BY-SA license is compatible with CC-BY-SA and CC-BY imports,
since the attributions are carried forward? (Although, as Richard
pointed out, this is also quite complicated.
) This really only becomes an issue if/when ODbL relicensing kicks in,
as I understand.
This issue also applies to OS opendata, as it requires attribution. Is
work afoot to get OS to agree to compatibility with ODbL? (Probably in
More information about the legal-talk