[OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?

[Brendan Morley]

"Actually, I've decided I'm not going to release my data as PD.  I prefer copyleft.  I prefer CC-BY-SA.  It keeps people from taking my data 
and incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses.  Like ODbL."

I'm assuming this is your comment Anthony? (I'm starting to lose track of the thread).

OdbL is meant to be copyleft for source data, as far as I can now tell.

But what's the problem with people "incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses"?  The data under the original licence will 
(should!) still be made available, and competes with the data made available under the more restrictive licence.

Brendan

--Original Message Text---
From: Anthony
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2009 10:22:55 -0500

On Sun, Dec 13, 2009 at 1:02 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
2009/12/13 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:

> If geodata is not copyrightable, then Share Alike is meaningless.  The
> original work is public domain, and the modified work is also public domain.


Assuming public domains is a valid option, which isn't valid in all
jurisdictions.

If the data is not copyrightable, then it is by definition public domain.

Even where PD is valid if you modify it and choose a
license which can be upheld it is no longer PD any more.


If the the data is not copyrightable, it is PD, and no "license" is going to magically make it not PD.


> The point is, whichever way it's decided, it'll be the same for the modified
> data as it is for the original data.  If the OSM database is not
> copyrightable, neither will the modified database be.  If the OSM database
> is copyrightable, then the modified database must be.


Just because certain copyrights don't exists in some jursidictions
doesn't mean they aren't valid in others. Which is the whole reason
for ODBL, because geodata may not be considered copyrightable in some
areas a new method of enforcing the same thing CC-BY-SA is needed.


For the areas where geodata is not copyrightable, CC-BY-SA isn't needed.


> If you'd prefer that, fine.  But please be honest about this - the ODbL is
> more than just a more enforceable version of the spirit of CC-BY-SA.  The


How is this different than the requirements of the GPL where you need
to make changes available if you distribute binaries?


Well, it's different from the GPL because it uses contract law, and not just copyright law.  As explained in the GPL:  "The licenses for most 
software and other practical works are designed to take away your freedom to share and change the works. By contrast, the GNU General 
Public License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change all versions of a program--to make sure it remains free software 
for all its users."  The ODbL falls into the former category of "licenses".

The ODbL *is* somewhat more similar to the GPL than it is to CC-BY-SA.  But CC-BY-SA was chosen as the license for OSM, not the GPL.  
So stop saying the ODbL is in the same spirit as CC-BY-SA.  Claim it's in the same spirit as the GPL, and then we can have that discussion.


> requirements go beyond requiring derivative works to be licensed under the
> same license.  Most significantly, the ODbL requires people to offer copies
> of any derivative databases that are used in the making of the final
> derivative work.  Among other things, that means having to keep copies of
> such databases, something which is not always done (if I want to alter the
> database, render tiles, and then throw out the altered database, I'm not
> able to do that, because I have to offer people copies of the altered
> database).


Again, this is no different than requirements of GPL software.


And again, I was comparing ODbL to the intent of CC-BY-SA, not GPL.  If you'd like me to compare the ODbL to the GPL, please start a new 
thread, and I'll be happy to make the full comparison.  I hope you first realize, though, that CC-BY-SA is not the GPL.  CC-BY-SA does not 
require you to distribute source code when you distribute binaries.  It is not *intended* to require that.  And anyone who takes the time to read 
the simple one page description of CC-BY-SA ought to know that.


There is no way everyone is going to be happy as a result of this,
that's human nature, people are influenced and motivated by various
things, a lot of people agree with the GPL, at lot of people don't
which is why you end up with others using BSD and other similar
licenses.


I agree with the GPL.  There's little chance I'm going to release my software under the BSD license.  But software isn't geodata.

If you want to push your data as PD that's fine, tag the change set as
PD when you upload and problem solved then such data can be extracted
regardless what other data is licensed as then everyone is happy, of
course this only counts in countries that have a notion of PD
otherwise people in those countries wouldn't be able to use such data
either. Ain't it grand having lawyers make laws? :)



Actually, I've decided I'm not going to release my data as PD.  I prefer copyleft.  I prefer CC-BY-SA.  It keeps people from taking my data 
and incorporating it into data under more restrictive licenses.  Like ODbL.



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091214/ccafacc7/attachment.html>