[OSM-legal-talk] CC-BY-3.0 *IT* license

Andrea Musuruane musuruan at gmail.com
Sat Oct 1 09:15:09 UTC 2022


Hi Simon,

On Fri, Sep 30, 2022 at 5:27 PM Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

>
> IMHO the whole thing is slightly bizarre.
>

If I understand all the story correctly this was a first attempt by local
European Creative Common chapters to deal with database rights. And
probably not a very successful one because sui generis right was dealt in a
very different way in the CC 4.0 set of licences.


> But in any case: if the licensor applied the licence to a work/dataset
> in which they only have sui generis database rights then waiving the sui
> generis rights would boil down to waiving all rights.
>
> But
>
> a) you would need to determine with a high degree of certainty that
> there are no other rights involved.
>

The database structure will still be protected by copyright but that
shouldn't be a problem since we have our on data model in OSM. I can't
think of other rights involved in geographical datasets.


> b) why would the licensor choose the (fairly convoluted) license in the
> first place instead of something that simply makes it clear that they
> are waiving all rights (CC0 or similar).
>

My view is that public administrations often chose to use this license for
their data prior to the introduction of CC 4.0.


> Given that, I would not consider it good form exploiting what might
> simply be a mistake (see b)), I would suggest asking for explicit
> permission / waiver. If they are not willing to sign the waiver then
> obviously something has gone wrong.
>

Even if it was a mistake (i.e. the Licensor didn't understand the License
it freely chose) I believe it is legally irrelevant. And if we want to
pursue this, we should then check that all Licensors have read and
understood the License they spontaneously chose (and that they also
understood the waivers).

Kind Regards,

Andrea
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20221001/43731eb7/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list