[talk-au] Going separate ways

[Richard Fairhurst]

On 11/07/2011 10:52, John Smith wrote:
> 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.

There is no need to be "compatible": that's the entire point of the 
Collective Work provision. It allows you to combine two separate and 
independent works with different licences. In the words of CC-BY-SA, 
"this does not require the Collective Work apart from the Work itself to 
be made subject to the terms of this License" (4a).

Rather than me restating the same thing 8972352345 times, I suggest 
that, before you do "file an injunction", you consult a lawyer who will 
tell you the same thing I have just told you.

Richard