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

[David Groom]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Collinson" <mike at ayeltd.biz>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>; 
"Francis Davey" <fjmd1a at gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:38 PM
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY is compatible with ODbL/CT?


> (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.

If you say "not necessarily force users further down the chain to do so" 
isn't that a breach CC-BY  terms which, Under 8b, requires "Licensor offers 
to the recipient a licence to the original Work on the same terms and 
conditions as the licence granted to You under this Licence" [2 below]. 
Surely if  we use CC-BY data, we have for require ("force") users "down the 
line" to attibute it to the origional authors.

David

>
> (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