[talk-au] Going separate ways

[John Smith]

On 11 July 2011 19:29, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> 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.

It's my understanding that CC-by-SA is only compatible with itself,
and it's definitely not compatible with the ODBL because the ODBL
doesn't require any sort of minimum attribution or share a like clause
on produced works.