[OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

Rob Myers rob at robmyers.org
Mon Jul 26 10:04:25 BST 2010


On 07/24/2010 05:43 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 24, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org
> <mailto:rob at robmyers.org>> wrote:
>     On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 11:59:52 -0400, Anthony <osm at inbox.org
>     <mailto:osm at inbox.org>> wrote:
>      >
>      > How?
>
>     By acknowledging their existence and using them against themselves.
>
> I don't follow.

The ODbL does the same thing to the restrictions of the DB Right and of 
contract law that copyleft does to copyright. It acknowledges them, 
asserts them, and then uses them to ensure that they cannot be used to 
restrict use any further thereby neutralizing them.

> Changing attribution is comparably difficult to relicensing under the
> ODbL?  I'm sorry for sounding like a broken record, but I don't follow.

It is comparably difficult because it requires consulting the same 
number of people about an issue that some people have surprisingly 
strong objections to.

>      > Personally I disagree with that hallucination.  A mash-up is a
>     derivative
>      > work.  In fact, I'd say it's pretty much the quintessential
>     example of
>     the
>      > derivative work.
>
>     I agree with you. But the community standards of OSM don't seem to.
>
> But that just doesn't make any logical sense.

It doesn't make any *legal* sense. ;-)

- Rob.




More information about the legal-talk mailing list