The question has been raised in these discussions about the ODbL's reverse-engineering provisions, and their compatibility or otherwise with share-alike licenses. Here is my analysis and suggestions.
1) The ODbL wishes to prevent people regenerating the Database from Produced Works. ODbL section 4.7: "For the avoidance of doubt, creating a Produced Work, and then re-creating the whole or a Substantial part of the Data found in this Database, a Derivative Database, or a Database that is part of a Collective Database from the Produced Work, is still subject to this Licence. Any product of this type of reverse engineering activity (whether done by You or on Your behalf by a third party) is governed by this License." 2) Share-Alike Licences, such as the GPL and CC-BY-SA, have clauses which prevent someone distributing a work under the licence from adding additional restrictions. (Other classes of licences may also have such a stipulation, but this is the largest and most common class which does.) GPLv3 section 10: "You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License." CC-BY-SA section 4a: "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License or the ability of the recipient of the Work to exercise the rights granted to that recipient under the terms of the License." 3) In order for the ODbL's restriction on reverse engineering to stick, the no-reverse-engineering stipulation has to be part of the terms which apply to the use or reuse of the Produced Work, both by the person who Produced it and by other third parties. Otherwise, the term would be trivially avoidable - I create the Produced Work, and you reverse-engineer it. 4) A Produced Work is not a Derivative Database, and so does not fall under the ODbL. The ODbL is designed to allow you to license Produced Works however you choose. 5) Therefore, I submit, the reverse engineering clause cannot be made enforceable by copyright permission, in the manner of e.g. the GPLv3, because the ODbL does not make claims on the copyright in the Produced Work. This is one reason why the ODbL must be a contract, in all jurisdictions, not just those with no database right. The person creating the work is contractually obliged by the reverse-engineering clause of the ODbL to respect this restriction, and to pass the restriction to anyone to whom they pass the Produced Work. 6) A no-reverse-engineering stipulation counts as a "further restriction" (GPL) or imposed term (CC-BY-SA) on the use of the work, which restricts a right. 7) Specifically, the right so restricted is the right to make derivative works of a certain type - databases of map data. The right to make derivative works is clearly a right that these licences wish to preserve. 8) Therefore, it is not possible to have a reverse-engineering clause for Produced Works, and also for it to be possible to create Produced Works that one can license under any licence with a "no additional terms" clause, including share-alike licences. It's one or the other. So what can be done? I agree that reverse engineering is a risk. Life is not perfect. But still, my suggestion is that we should abandon the idea of trying to prevent reverse engineering, for the following reasons: a) GPL and CC-BY-SA compatibility of produced works is more important. b) If people are reverse-engineering our stuff, either they need a massive, sustained, continuous Mechanical Turk effort, or their map will be out of date anyway. Gerv _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk