[OSM-talk] Transition to CC-4 instead of destroying data

Ed Avis eda at waniasset.com
Tue Dec 20 09:56:37 GMT 2011


Simon Poole <simon <at> poole.ch> writes:

>>Are there any problems with CC-BY-SA 2.0 relating specifically to the
>>contribution of content by individual mappers to the OSMF servers?

>Well we could discuss  if in general CC-by-SA 2.0 is at all suitable as 
>a replacement for contributor terms, but naturally for example the "sui 
>generis" database rights are one of the problematic issues (being the 
>most likely IPR that large contributors could own).

I believe that the statement "you agree that your contributions can be
distributed under CC-BY-SA 2.0" should cover it, as it doesn't specifically
refer to database right or copyright or any other rights.  The 2.0 licence
does not mention database right by name, but it does automatically allow
distribution under 3.0, which does.

>>Other collaborative projects such as Wikipedia must face the same issues.

>And we know that they "cheated" ....

Yes, and that is the best way to do it!  If the OSMF/Open Data Commons people
were able to work together with CC (and admittedly the 'Science Commons'
statement about not using copyleft for scientific data muddied the waters)
to put in an upgrade clause between CC-BY-SA and ODbL, all the difficulties
would pretty much vanish into thin air.

>for example Wikipedia doesn't really distribute its data for use 
>in other projects (commercial or other)  and in so far doesn't have as 
>large responsibility towards downstream data users as OSM has.

Wikipedia in my opinion took much better care of downstream users than OSMF
is planning to.  They continued to licence under the old licence and the new
one, at the user's option.  That means that no downstream user who was using
Wikipedia before the changeover got cut off.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>




More information about the talk mailing list