[OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?

[80n]

On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Mike Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz> wrote:

>  At 10:11 AM 13/08/2010, 80n wrote:
>
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:47 PM, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net >
> wrote:
>  b) Ignoring the Yahoo data, but taking any data that may have had a PD or
> CC-BY-SA clause that has be used in import, since these are general
> permissions given and they do not explicitly mention granting rights to use
> in OSM, I cant possible agree that I have EXPLICIT permission to use them. I
> have permission by virtue of they are PD or CC-BY-SA, but not EXPLICIT
> permission to do so.
>
>
> David, I don't think that CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL, nor with the
> Contributor Terms.  If you have added content that is licensed under
> CC-BY-SA you cannot agree to the Contrbutor Terms.
>
> I'm sure you know that but your statement above suggests that CC-BY-SA is
> compatible with OBdL and CT.  It is not.
>
>
> I have moved this from "[OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins"  to legal
> talk as it is worth further discussion in view of dilemmas faced by our
> Australian community.  I understand that CC-BY-SA is currently a preferred
> vehicle for releasing government data.  I am inclined to agree with 80n,
> though in the context that CC-BY-SA licenses on data are just too
> potentially broad in their virality. I present this for the purposes of
> discussion and do not see my conclusions as immutable. I focus on
> Share-Alike, though Attribution is also a consideration.
>
>
In order to submit CC-BY-SA under the contributor terms you need to give
OSMF rights that you don't possess.

CC-BY-SA does not grant you "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by
copyright" and so you can't pass that right on to OSMF.  Its as simple as
that isn't it?


80n






> I would also like to note that I am having an email dialogue with Ben Last
> of NearMap of Australia ( http://www.nearmap.com).  They allow use of
> their PhotoMaps to derive information (e.g. StreetMap data) under a Creative
> Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence. They are being most
> cordial and helpful. They are submitting the ODbL for legal review from
> their own perspective.  I hope they will share some of the conclusions they
> reach, both for the perspective and the authoritative opinion.
>
> ----------------------
>
> To grossly paraphrase, a GNU type software license it works like this:
>
> Write a word processor  --X-->  Write a book with the software.
>
> Virality remains in the software, it is NOT transmitted to the book. It IS
> possible to use other non-compatible software to make the book.  But if the
> software is improved to write the book and software is published, then
> software improvements must be available Share Alike.
>
> ODbL is slightly stronger:
>
> Create map data --X--> Make a map
>
> Virality remains in the data, it is not transmitted to the map except in
> reverse engineering out the data. It is possible to use other non-compatible
> data to make the map under certain conditions.  But if the data is improved
> and the map or the data is published, then data improvements must be
> available Share Alike.
>
> But if CC-BY-SA license is used to try on information rather than the virus
> can potentially just keep on going. It all depends on what the original
> publisher feels they want to exert(?).
>
> Here is a real dilemma being faced by the Australian community:
>
> Aerial imagery under CC-BY-SA  -----> Create map data with some imagery
> tracing -----> Pull out a single lat/lon and put it in a book; make a map;
> ...
>
> ODbL breaks the chain at the second "----->", either because the extract is
> not substantial or because the right-hand item is a Produced Work. CC-BY-SA
> does not, or at least you'll need to clarify with the original publisher(?).
>
> Personal conclusion: The CC-BY-SA license are great on fully creative
> works.  It was never intended to be applied to highly factual data and
> information, and if it is, it is vague and confusing.  If you believe
> strongly in  pandemic virality, then it is a good thing.  If you believe
> that all the chain of Share-Alike and Attribution should be far more
> constrained, then it is just dangerous and should be avoided. Which is why
> most of us want to move away from it as our own license. Our primary goal is
> disseminating data we collect ourselves.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20100814/274715f9/attachment.html>