[talk-au] ODBL and real life...

[Anthony]

On Jun 19, 2011 7:17 PM, "Grant Slater" <openstreetmap at firefishy.com> wrote:
> On 19 June 2011 22:20, Elizabeth Dodd <edodd at billiau.net> wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Jun 2011 18:12:25 +0100
>> Grant Slater <openstreetmap at firefishy.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We have people subverting our CC-BY-SA license right now!!1! *zomg*
>>> And they wouldn't be abusing our ODbL license in future.
>>> Case: UN: http://www.unitar.org/unosat-releases-new-maps-over-haiti
>>
>> I viewed these maps and understand why you have made the claim that the
>> licence has been subverted, with no attribution given, assuming that
>> the finding of the displaced person camps and damaged bridges etc was
>> OSM volunteer work.
>
> I should have been clearer. OSM is attributed on the right hand side
> of the map, but they (UN) are violating the letter of our CC-BY-SA
> license.
>
> There would be no violation under ODbL.

What is the violation under cc-by-sa?  and where are they offering a copy of
their modified database?

>
>> I've not seen this example mentioned in the LWG or Board minutes, so I
>> don't know when you contacted UNITAR / UNOSAT to have this clarified.
>> I cannot however, follow your logic that it won't happen with a
>> differently licensed map.
>>
>
> Do you care that they are not sticking to the letter of our existing
> license? I certainly don't care, but I would prefer see them not in
> theoretical violation...
> I am an advocate of the ODbL because it makes our lives easier and
> makes it easier for people to use our map data without getting tangled
> up in licensing.

I'd be an advocate of the ODbL if it weren't for the fact that it makes it
much much harder (nearly impossible) to use map data without getting tangled
up in licensing (the need to offer a copy of the modified database, which in
some cases may no longer exist).

>
> Now returning to thread... Sure we could make 'produced works' more
> restrictive, but the negative consequences would out way the benefit.
> The Open Knowledge Foundation / Open Data Commons (organisation which
> created ODbL license) and LWG's legal council think there is
> sufficient protection already without the need of adding a restrictive
> 'no reverse engineering' clause requirement on the produced works*,
> which I think "John Smith" is advocating for. This has all been
> discussed to death during the drafting phase of the ODbL license back
> in 2008/2009.
>
> *: Correct me if I am wrong, but the GPL also doesn't have a
> restrictive 'no reverse engineering' clause.

The GPL isn't sold as a license which restricts the use of factual
information obtained from reverse engineering.

>
> / Grant
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20110619/095ef425/attachment-0001.html>