[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] ODbL vs CC-by-SA pros and cons

Eric Jarvies eric at csl.com.mx
Sun Aug 29 23:41:04 BST 2010



Eric Jarvies
Sent from my iPad

On Aug 29, 2010, at 3:10 AM, "jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com" <jamesmikedupont at googlemail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 10:59 AM, Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 29 August 2010 00:40, Nic Roets <nroets at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Mike, my understanding (and I think Grant will agree) is that copyleft is an
>>> idea: I publish something in such a way that coerce others into sharing
>>> their work with me. The implementation details of that idea (copyright law,
>>> contract law, unenforceable moral clauses etc) is left to the lawyers and
>>> the managers.
> 
>> As follows: if X uses your data under a contract with you that
>> requires use in a particular way (eg to mimic something like the GPL)
>> and X, in breach of that agreement, passes data to Y then barring
>> certain special circumstances (such as X and Y colluding) it will be
>> virtually impossible to prevent Y from using the data in any way they
>> please.
> 
> unless the work is copyrighted or copylefted as well. What right does
> Y have to the data to begin with? under copyright law, he has no
> rights.

Y has everything to do with the data, in the context explained above. The point is; it is already difficult(and expensive, time consuming) to defend rights on said data, it will become even moreso. 


> 
>> Of course if there's an IP right as well Y might be breaching that,
>> but then you wouldn't need to use the contract, only a licence.
> 
> yes, i think i see what you are saying:
> the license will be the only protection against  third party abuse.
> I think that copyleft is good enough.
> 
> mike
> 
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
> 



More information about the legal-talk mailing list