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

[Mike Collinson]

(Was [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?)  
At 10:38 AM 14/08/2010, Francis Davey wrote:
>On 14 August 2010 09:22, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>>
>
>That looks right to me. In order to comply with section 2 of the
>contributor terms and contributor must be able to grant an extremely
>widely drafted licence. If the contributor is merely a licensee under
>CC-BY-SA they will not be able to comply with section 2 of the
>contributor terms.
>
>I also think its pretty clear that, in context, section 1 would not be
>complied with either. It would be impossible for a CC licensee to
>agree to "You have explicit permission from the rights holder to
>submit the Contents and grant the license below." since CC-BY-SA does
>not give that permission.
>
>Apologies if this misses the point: I am a lawyer not a mapper.

Francis, thank you. And I am a mapper not a lawyer so this may be a dumb question relating to CC-BY (not CC-BY-SA):

If Section 2 of the Contributor Terms [1] were amended from 

Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, ...

to 

Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, ...

do you see at least converging compatibility with CC-BY [2]? Or indeed it is implicit now?

Intent:

(1) Section 4 always was intended to allow and encourage governmental organisation imports that require attribution under the standard terms without need for derogation.

(2) Maintain maximum flexibility for future choices.  The license used in section 3 might vary over the next 100 years due to the freedoms in Section 2 but Section 4 remains immutable.  We attribute our sources but not necessarily force users further down the chain to do so.

(3) Avoid the attribution chain problem now.  Not get into the situation where end users making maps are forced to check whether just possibly they are making a map with data from a 100 agencies and have to attribute on the map.  This is the real reason I am twisting and turning not to just say "we will accept any attribution terms required".  We want to migrate from CCs license specifically because they are not suited, it would be a great shame to bring back all the ambiguity via the back door.



Mike


[1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms

[2] If a specific topical version is useful, http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/legalcode 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100822/a6e8669b/attachment.html>