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

Steve Bennett stevagewp at gmail.com
Mon Aug 31 07:12:26 UTC 2015


Wow, great responses everyone - much appreciated.

Simon Poole:
>Before this discussion goes off on a tangent, which version of CC-by are
they currently using?

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/

You can see this for instance at:
https://www.data.vic.gov.au/data/dataset/vicmap-hydro-connector-watercourse

Richard Fairhurst:
>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

Thanks for confirming that. I was a bit confused by the term in the CC-BY
deed:

>You may not apply legal terms or technological measures
<http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/#> that legally restrict
others from doing anything the license permits.

Which could be interpreted to mean you can't apply CC-BY-SA which
"restricts others" from using the data and not sharing it, which "the
license" (CC-BY) "permits". But CC's wiki explicitly says this is ok:

https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions#If_I_derive_or_adapt_material_offered_under_a_Creative_Commons_license.2C_which_CC_license.28s.29_can_I_use.3F

>When creating an adaptation of material under the license identified in
the lefthand column [BY], you may license your contributions to the
adaptation under one of the licenses indicated on the top row [BY-SA] if
the corresponding box is green [it is].

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

Good point. Although hypothetically there could be non-worldwide providers.


Andrew Turner:
>So a simpler route here would be to suggest "upgrading" to use CC-By 4.0?

Getting DELWP (and most likely the rest of the Victorian government) to
switch to CC-BY 4.0, let alone CC-0, would be a huge task that would
probably involve all kinds of bureaucracy, working groups, etc etc.

Richard Best:
[a long, very helpful email currently stuck in moderation]
>Perhaps helpfully, there is a New Zealand Government precedent for the
situation you're facing here. Land Information New Zealand licenses a wide
range of geospatial data under CC-BY licences. However, it has also allowed
data to be made available on OSM under the ODbL. See here for details:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/LINZ

>I suggest you draw the Victorian State Government's attention to the
approach taken by Land Information in New Zealand, with a view to asking
the Victorian State Government to take the same approach. I completely
understand their position of not wanting to "get into creating one-off
variations for every potential user with a preference" but I think it's
important to appreciate that we're talking here about a global project
which has decided on the ODbL, that it would be extremely difficult to
change the current regime to another one and that there is no real downside
to the Victorian State Government dual-licensing its data, once under CC-BY
and separately under the ODbL (or, actually, allowing OSMF to license under
the ODbL). It's perfectly entitled to do that and people who want to use
the data directly from the Victorian State Government's site under CC-BY
can always do so. Most significantly, dual-licensing under CC-BY (via a
government site) and the ODbL (via OSM) allows the data to be used in a
wider range of contexts and for it to be mashed up with other rich datasets
already in OSM or that may be added to OSM in the future. Allowing this
could result in cultural, environmental, economic or social benefits for
Australians. This is all entirely consistent with the rationale for open
licensing in the first place.

Wow. Hard to believe that New Zealand open licensed their data 7 years ago.
Maybe this will be the precedent we need. That's really an excellent,
well-worded summary. Would it be alright with you if I CC'ed you in my next
response to them (which they have asked to be directed to *their* legal
team...)?

Steve



On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

>
> Hi Steve
>
> Before this discussion goes off on a tangent, which version of CC-by are
> they currently using?
>
> Simon
>
>
>
> Am 30.08.2015 um 17:14 schrieb Steve Bennett:
>
> Hi all,
>   I've been trying to convince the state government of Victoria (southeast
> Australia) to allow their VicMap raw data to be imported into OSM. It's
> currently CC-BY, and they've told me they're happy in principle for it to
> be used this way, but they're uncomfortable making the recommended
> statement "DELWP has no objections to geodata derived in part from Vicmap,
> either traced from Vicmap map products, or directly from spatial extracts,
> being incorporated into the OpenStreetMap project geodata database and
> released under a free and open license".
>
> Specifically, they don't think ODbL is as "free and open" as CC-BY, and
> they don't particularly want to make a one-off statement for OSM.
>
> >The only other requirement is not to apply legal terms or technological
> measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license
> permits. If the ODbL is more restrictive than our CC by Attribution this
> presents a problem for OSM, not for us. My initial response is that we
> wouldn't want OSM to apply a more restrictive license than ours, and in
> respect of the statement Steve wants us to provide, DELWP doesn't want to
> get into creating one-off variations for every potential user with a
> preference - Google, HERE, etc.
> ...
>
> >We believe the CC by Attribution appropriate to sufficiently and
> equitably provide our data to all/anyone, and if Steve is concerned he
> should take it up with OSM. I'll refer it to Legal (not ours, DataVic's) if
> he wants to pursue it further.
>
>
> It's all getting quite subtle and possibly out of my depth. I'm not sure
> if the concern is a misunderstanding about the implications of dual
> licensing, a philosophical objection to "free" licences that impose
> share-alike restrictions like ODbL, or something different.
>
> I wonder if there are any expert licence negotiators here who might be
> able to get involved in the discussion.
>
> Thanks very much,
> Steve
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing listlegal-talk at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20150831/e87c370b/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list