[talk-au] Going separate ways

[Richard Fairhurst]

On 11/07/2011 10:13, John Smith wrote:
> On 11 July 2011 19:04, Richard Fairhurst<richard at systemed.net>  wrote:
>> they don't have to be the same licence. That unambiguously works with ODbL
>> (4.5a): whether it works with CC is a moot point because CC is unclear for
>> data licensing, but it's likely that it does (after all, there are
>
> Well if you attempt to use data I've created under any license other
> than cc-by-sa I'd be happy to to file an injunction to finally answer
> how much copyright extends to map content creation.

It's not using it under a licence other than CC-BY-SA. A "Collective 
Database" or "Collective Work" means that the ODbL part of it is under 
ODbL and the CC-BY-SA part is under CC-BY-SA. This is the very first 
clause (1a) of CC-BY-SA.

In Australian legal terms, the two databases are "underlying works" and 
so retain their own rights. The two together are a "compilation" (albeit 
one that is so simple it doesn't attract any additional copyright in 
itself), and therefore users need permission of the rights-holders in 
the underlying works. This permission has already been granted in the 
two open content licences used: the "Collective Work" permission of 
CC-BY-SA and the "Collective Database" permission of ODbL.

Richard