[OSM-legal-talk] Checking if I understand correctly...

[80n]

On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 5:28 PM, Mike Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz> wrote:

> At 02:58 AM 5/10/2010, Steve Bennett wrote:
> >On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 8:15 PM, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net>
> wrote:
> >> The particular issues I believe you have concerns with have also been
> >> discussed extensively on this list. You wont be surprised if I say that
> not
> >> everyone agrees with you interpretation.
> >
> >Oh? Which bit - and  what's the consensus interpretation?
> >
> >> However the CT's are currently being revised,
> >> https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_81272pvt54   and the revised
> >> version probably  will give you less concern.
> >
> >Not really - the change from "you must be the copyright owner" to "you
> >must have permission from the copyright owner to relicense their work"
> >doesn't really change anything, I don't think? Either way, existing
> >CC-BY-SA content is inadmissible without explicit authorisation from
> >its owner. (In other words, existing CC-BY-SA licensing is worthless,
> >since you need explicit permission anyway.)
> >
> >But if I'm incorrect, please tell me.
>
> I think there are two issues here.
>
> A CC-BY-SA license *is* an explicit permission to you by the rights holder.
>  So that is not a problem and we will revise the CTs to better communicate
> that in plain language.
>
> But what is a problem is that applying a CC-BY-SA license to highly factual
> information is very vague as to what you can actually do (or, more
> correctly, what you should not do) and is not recommended by the authors of
> the license.
>

What's specifically is vague about the CC-BY-SA license?  The language used
in CC-BY-SA 3.0 is very clear and precise:

*""Work"* means the literary and/or artistic work offered under the terms of
this License including without limitation any production in the literary,
scientific and artistic domain, whatever may be the mode or form of its
expression including digital form, such as ... an illustration, map, plan,
sketch or three-dimensional work relative to geography, ...; a compilation
of data to the extent it is protected as a copyrightable work;"

The key clauses being:

 "whatever may be the mode or form of its expression including digital form"


and

"map, plan, sketch or three-dimensional work relative to geography"



>
> So you really need to go back to the actual rights holder and ask them to
> clarify what they personally/organisationally are happy with, or better
> still, use a more appropriate license.  That is a major reason we want to
> move away from it ourselves.
>

The spirit of the share-alike clauses within the CC-BY-SA license is
patently obviously inconsistent with all of the CT and the ODbL and the DbCL
licenses.


>
> The other alternative is for us collectively to get a highly authoritative
> source to say that a CC-BY-SA license on data could reasonably be
> interpreted as giving permission to contribute to OSM. I'll find out where
> we are on that.
>

Who have you got in mind?



>
> Mike
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20101005/8221c262/attachment-0001.html>