[OSM-legal-talk] Any expert CC-BY -> ODbL negotiators?

Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net
Mon Aug 31 05:58:24 UTC 2015

Steve Bennett wrote [quoting DELWP]:
> My initial response is that we wouldn't want OSM to apply a more 
> restrictive license than ours

In which case they've chosen the wrong licence.

If you license your work under a permissive, attribution-only licence
(CC-BY), then you are automatically giving permission for it to be
relicensed under a share-alike, attribution-only licence (CC-BY-SA). You
can't license under CC-BY and say "no-one may incorporate this data into a
dataset with share-alike restrictions". That would defeat the point of a
permissive licence, which is roughly (attribution aside) "do what you will
with this data".

They can go ask Creative Commons if they don't believe this.

So the question should be: given that they have already allowed the work to
be relicensed under a share-alike, attribution-required licence (CC-BY-SA)
which happens to have automatic compatibility with CC-BY, will they allow
the work to be relicensed under another share-alike, attribution-required
licence (ODbL) which unfortunately doesn't have automatic compatibility?
There's no principled reason I can see for granting one but not the other.

> DELWP doesn't want to get into creating one-off variations for 
> every potential user with a preference - Google, HERE, etc.

Where "etc." means "TomTom". There are only four worldwide geodata
providers. It's hardly a slippery slope of individual permissions.


View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Any-expert-CC-BY-ODbL-negotiators-tp5853511p5853553.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the legal-talk mailing list