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

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 5:10 AM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
>
>> On 07/24/2010 05:46 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> But that would mean that mashing up CC-BY-SA data with ODbL data would
>>> violate CC-BY-SA.
>>>
>>
>> Copyleft licences (or a copyleft licence and a hybrid copyright/DB
>> Right/contract law conceptual approximation of sharealike) are *generally*
>> mutually incompatible as they require derivative works to be placed under
>> the same single licence.
>>
>> You can however mash-up the produced work under BY-SA.
>>
>
> Only if you license the produced work under BY-SA.  Which means *all
> elements* of the produced work are under BY-SA.  Which means *the data*
> encapsulated in the produced work is under BY-SA.  Which means anybody who
> extracts the data back out of the produced work would get the data under
> BY-SA.
>
> But looking at the text of the license, I don't think you can do that.
> ODbL Section 4.6 says "If You Publicly Use a Derivative Database or a
> Produced Work from a Derivative Database, You must also offer to recipients
> of the Derivative Database or Produced Work a copy in a machine readable
> form..."  But that is incompatible with BY-SA, which says that "You may not
> offer or impose any terms on the Work that alter or restrict the terms of
> this License or the recipients' exercise of the rights granted hereunder."
> A produced work under BY-SA can be publicly used without offering recipients
> the source database.  But a produced work from an ODbL database cannot be
> publicly used without offering recipients the source database.
>
> I'm not sure if that's intentional or not.  I suspect the creators of the
> ODbL wanted to have their cake and eat it too.  But you can't do that.  If
> the data can be used in a produced work under BY-SA, then the data has to be
> BY-SA.
>

You said, "Which means *all elements* of the produced work are under BY-SA."

This is already the invalid step in your "proof". If I license a Wikipedia
article under CC-BY-SA, that doesn't mean that the pictures in that article
have to be CC-BY-SA. If I license an album of songs under CC-BY-SA, that
doesn't mean that each song in the album have to be CC-BY-SA as well.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100726/fe9f4549/attachment.html>