[OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses

Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdreist at gmail.com
Tue Jan 19 10:23:15 UTC 2016

2016-01-19 10:38 GMT+01:00 Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch>:

> As has been pointed out here before CC-BY 4.0 is essentially a completely
> new license (compared to previous CC-BY versions) and potentially is not
> "fixable", definitely it is not just a question of getting permission to
> attribute on the website. Further it could be argued that in reality such
> permission creates a completely new licence, in any case I think "fixable"
> might be the wrong term, since every licence is "fixable" by replacing it
> with something else or explicit permission.

yes, I agree that "fixable" might not be the right term, and that adding
something to a license makes it a new license. I had thought about this
"fixable" and "not fixable" wording but decided to put it as a kind of
generalized placeholder and wait what the discussion would come up with.
You are right that any license is fixable if replaces by a different one,
but if someone has decided to require only attribution it is much more
likely they'd be willing to agree on a specific kind of (indirect)
attribution rather than someone refusing commercial use would agree on
permitting it.
If the cc-by 4.0 is not compatible even by agreeing on a particular kind of
attribution, please go ahead and fix the page. I had naively (and
admittedly without looking at the details) asumed that an attribution only
license would be OK if attribution requirements are fulfilled.

>  The other problem with ODbL and CC-BY licences is that they do not allow
> sub-licensing, not to mention that the ODbL is silent on the form of rights
> (ownership) in derivative databases (in conventional copyright the creator
> of a derivative could/would have separate rights to the specific
> derivative, it is not clear how this is supposed to work in the potential
> absence of copyright protection in the case of database elements that
> themselves have no protection).
> And another point: the whole thing needs a gigantic disclaimer at the top
> pointing out that the determinations are only for unmodified versions of
> the licences and that (that they are unmodified) needs to be determined by
> looking at the actual licence text, see the OS version of the OGL and the
> current upset with the Australian GNAF data (licensed on terms of a
> modified CC-BY 4.0) for examples of such issues.

its a wiki page, please go ahead and fix it. If there are uncertainties and
doubt, make some annotations.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20160119/a6a79a0a/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the legal-talk mailing list