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

[Rob Myers]

On 09/03/2010 05:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Rob Myers<rob at robmyers.org>  wrote:
>> On 09/03/2010 05:27 PM, Anthony wrote:
>>> But the extract is not the database.  It may be *a* database, but it's
>>> not *the* database that's protected by ODbL.
>>
>> Then if it contains a Substantial portion of the Database its *a* Derivative
>> Database. (Capitalised words refer to ODbL term definitions.)
>
> ODbL term definitions only matter if the extract is protected by law.

Well yes but then that's true of BY-SA as well, and BY-SA avails itself 
of less of the law.

> I can't write a license which says "you can't copy a substantial
> portion of my phone book white pages" and then expect to enforce it on
> people who haven't agreed to those terms.  Not in a
> non-database-rights and non-sweat-of-the-brow jurisdiction, anyway.

In those jurisdictions BY-SA will not cover extracted facts either.

> Whether or not the database is a Derivative Database only matters if
> the database is a derivative database.  And if you haven't copied any
> of the copyrightable portions of the original database, it isn't.

A Derivative Database will be covered by copyright/database 
right/contract law to the extent possible. BY-SA has 33% of that 
coverage at most.

So I'm not really clear about what the problem is meant to be.

- Rob.