[Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL
80n80n at gmail.com
Sat Dec 5 12:21:56 UTC 2009
On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:36 AM, James Livingston <doctau at mac.com> wrote:
> On 04/12/2009, at 7:25 AM, Ulf Möller wrote:
> > However, one important limitation of the ODbL is that we cannot accept
> > CC-licensed data, nor ODbL-licensed data, from other projects. That also
> > means there will be no two-way exchange with Wikipedia's Geo project.
> So the current situation is that if someone creates a derived database, we
> probably won't be able to import their data because they (arguably) don't
> have to release it, but we can import data that people have made available
> under CC-BY or CC-BY-SA. The proposed situation is that if someone creates a
> derived database, we probably wont be able to import their data because they
> may not agree to the Contributor Terms, and we may not be able to import
> CC-BY(-SA) data for the same reason.
I think you are saying the following:
1) X takes a copy of the OSM data
2) X adds new data to it
3) X publishes it under ODbL as a derived database
4) Y recieves a copy of the database from X
5) Y cannot in add the new data to OSM because of the contributor terms
Only X who is the copyright owner of the derived database can agree to the
contributor terms. Y is not the owner and cannot grant "a worldwide,
royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act
that is restricted by copyright" to the data.
Can someone confirm whether this is right or not? It seems like there must
be some flaw in this argument.
> So, how exactly do we benefit from ODbL + Contributor Terms?
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the osmf-talk