[OSM-legal-talk] Combining Creative Commons Licensed Data with ODbL and Redistributing

[Paul Norman]

We've been using CC BY licensed data in OSM. The only potential issue is
that they be satisfied that the attribution is "reasonable to the medium or
means You are utilizing".

I would consider that a line saying "Hazard Data (C) CC BY foo, Map Data (C)
ODbL OpenStreetMap contributors" with appropriate hyperlinks would be
considered reasonable to an online map and they couldn't object. If that's
too long then perhaps "(C) foo, OpenStreetMap" with a more detailed legal
page.

The issue that comes up with OSM and CC BY is that our attribution is a
listing in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors and for major
sources on a national scale listing on
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright. Someone could potentially not
consider this means of attribution sufficient.

My recollection about "effective technological measures" is that the
language is DMCA related. It doesn't stop technical measures, it just stops
them from being "effective" and triggering some of the DMCA provisions.

GPLv3 has similar language stating that "no covered work shall be deemed
part of an effective technological measure ... under ... WIPO copyright
treaty, or similar laws..."

I think the net effect is that you can break the copy protection on a CC BY
licensed work and doing that by itself is not against the law. Of course
what you do with the work after you've broken the copyright protection could
be, but the mere breaking of copy protection is okay.

IANAL, etc

> From: Kate Chapman [mailto:kate at maploser.com]
> with ODbL and Redistributing
> 
> So the hazard database is a scientific model, I don't think it would be
> considered a fact database.
> 
> I believe there is some flexibility on asking the owner to pick a
> license, but the intent is they want an attribution only license.
> 
> If I understand things correctly the produced work (a printed map) could
> be licensed CC-BY no problem however. I'm just not sure what we do about
> the derived database.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> -Kate
> 
> On Thu, Nov 29, 2012 at 3:36 AM, Shu Higashi
> <s_higash at mua.biglobe.ne.jp> wrote:
> >> So basically right now the hazard database is licensed CC-BY
> >
> > Maybe different from the intent of the owner of the hazard database,
> > it won't be covered by CC-BY if the hazard database consist only of
> > fact datasets.
> > Though I don't know the exact legal interoperability between ODbL and
> CC-BY.
> >
> > Shu
> >
> > 2012/11/28, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org>:
> >> On 28/11/12 12:37, Kate Chapman wrote:
> >>> I don't believe that would apply to a derivative work, I think that
> >>> just applies to the work itself.
> >>>
> >>> I'm interested to hear other interpretations though.
> >>
> >> It's not particularly coherent given the obvious intent of the
> >> licence, but I think the anti-TPM clause applies to the work as used
> in adaptations.
> >>
> >> I don't remember a definitive answer from CC on this, though, and
> >> it's not in the FAQ.