[OSM-legal-talk] Some questions about using ODbL "Produced Work"

Tadeusz Knapik tadek12 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 24 22:01:32 BST 2012


Hello,

>> doesn't order him to attribute OSM, he uses my product). And then
>> another one will use this last map to retrace the whole area into his
>> CC-By-SA map. Where is the point of breaking ODbL license?
> You have to maintain attribution under BY-SA, so OSM has to be attributed at
> each point and no break will occur.
Ok, but how an attribution itself should overcome CC-By-SA's rights?
I mean if the last-in-the-chain user sees "OSM", and even looks at the
ODbL license, how could he assume the ODbL license applies to him
instead of CC-By-SA, and in which case? What determines which actions
are permitted, and which are not, and which license's rights are
stronger?
CC-By-SA's points 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b doesn't seem to leave place for
another copyrights "inside", and from my point of view they don't have
to as (in my NAL-opinion) ODbL doesn't try to impose on Produced Work
any rights other than attribution (point 4.3: Notice for using
output).
If ODbL should apply to a database retraced from CC-By-SA tiles (let's
rememeber they also contain someone else's work, like those trails and
mountain tops - so it's not just 'tiles from and ODbL map'), it would
have to create ODbL's Derivative Database, which conflicts with
CC-By-SA imposing CC-By-SA on an Adaptation. And as the product _is_
CC-By-SA, you can't say it does not apply...
Sincerely,

Tadeusz Knapik



More information about the legal-talk mailing list