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

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Mon Jul 26 18:21:58 BST 2010


On Mon, Jul 26, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:

> On 07/26/2010 05:19 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>>
>> Where are you given permission to copy and distribute the produced
>> work without following the terms of ODbL.
>>
>
> Nowhere.


Then you don't have permission to do so.  At least not anywhere that
database law or copyright law apply.


> However the terms that cover Produced Works are different to those that
> cover Derivative Databases, and the attribution/advertising requirement on
> produced works is BY-SA compatible.
>
>
>  (Alternatively, where does
>> the ODbL give you permission to copy and distribute the produced work
>> without following 4.6.)
>>
>
> 4.6 covers Derivative Databases, not Produced Works.


 "or a Produced Work from a Derivative Database"


>  Remember, copyright and database laws default
>> to "all rights reserved" barring a license to the contrary.
>>
>
> The ODbL is a licence to the contrary (except where it's a contract ;-) ).


So where in the ODbL does it give you permission to create a derived work,
to copy and distribute that derived work, etc?  If the answer is nowhere,
then you don't have permission to do it.

 So there are two parallel distribution and derivation graphs, of the
>>> ODbL-licenced databse and the (sometimes) BY-SA licenced works. Neither
>>> interferes with the rights granted under the other.
>>>
>>
>> That's not how licenses work.  By default you have no rights.  A
>> license *grants* rights.  The only way for the derived work (i.e. the
>> produced work) to be under BY-SA is if the rights holder grants a
>> license under BY-SA.
>>
>
> And if you receive the database under ODbL you have the licence to grant
> such a licence on Produced Works.


Where does the ODbL give that permission?  (Hint: it specifically says you
*can't* do it.  "You may not sublicense the Database.  Each time You
communicate the Database, the whole or Substantial part of the Contents, or
any Derivative Database to anyone else in any way, the Licensor offers to
the recipient a license to the Database ***on the same terms and conditions
as this License***."  Not "under CC-BY-SA", under ODbL.  Emphasis mine.)

Incidentally, that's why the LGPL explicitly gives permission to
>
> relicense the work under GPL.  Otherwise, LGPL wouldn't be compatible
>> with GPL.
>>
>
> Imagine a non-BY-SA licence on a work that says "you may licence
> transformative adaptations of this work under BY-SA as long as you attribute
> this work".
>
> The resulting work people release under BY-SA including the attribution to
> the original work both satisfies the original licence and is BY-SA
> compatible.
>
> That is the situation with the ODbL and BY-SA.
>

Where does ODbL say "you may license transformative adaptations of the work
under BY-SA as long as you attribute this work"?  It doesn't.  It says the
opposite.  It says you can't sublicense the work at all.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100726/bf584fd1/attachment.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list