[OSM-legal-talk] Would The ODbL and BY-SA Clash In A Database Extracted From a BY-SA Produced Work?

[Rob Myers]

On 09/02/2010 04:53 PM, Ed Avis wrote:
> Rob Myers<rob at ...>  writes:
>
>> http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/odc-discuss/2010-August/000291.html
>>
>> My understanding of the answer is that the data isn't what you are
>> licencing under BY-SA. You are licencing the originality/creativity
>> involved in making the produced work.
>
> This depends on some assumptions about copyright (that it applies only to
> originality and creativity, and not 'sweat of the brow', and in our particular

It doesn't matter whether we take a Byronic or Stakhanovite view of 
copyright, the point here is that the copyrighted new stuff in the 
produced work is what is being licenced under BY-SA, not the underlying 
data.

> case that it does not apply to maps or their source data), but it is held to

I don't think it assumes that. The ODbL covers database copyright where 
it exists, and BY-SA produced work maps presuppose that maps are 
copyrightable.

> be true by some people, and may well be in certain jurisdictions.
>
> This opens an interesting possibility: why not dual-license under both ODbL and
> CC-BY-SA?  If only the original/creative part is covered by copyright, then no
> licence to the data itself has been granted by offering a CC-BY-SA 2.0 licence.
> On the other hand, if it is covered by copyright, then CC-BY-SA is sufficient to
> ensure share-alike.

OSM will licence the database under ODbL and their maps under BY-SA AFAIK.

- Rob.