----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Collinson" <m...@ayeltd.biz>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>;
"Francis Davey" <fjm...@gmail.com>
Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 2:38 PM
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY is compatible with ODbL/CT?
(Was [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL?)
At 10:38 AM 14/08/2010, Francis Davey wrote:
On 14 August 2010 09:22, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
In order to submit CC-BY-SA under the contributor terms you need to give
OSMF rights that you don't possess.
CC-BY-SA does not grant you "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive,
perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by
copyright" and so you can't pass that right on to OSMF. Its as simple
as
that isn't it?
That looks right to me. In order to comply with section 2 of the
contributor terms and contributor must be able to grant an extremely
widely drafted licence. If the contributor is merely a licensee under
CC-BY-SA they will not be able to comply with section 2 of the
contributor terms.
I also think its pretty clear that, in context, section 1 would not be
complied with either. It would be impossible for a CC licensee to
agree to "You have explicit permission from the rights holder to
submit the Contents and grant the license below." since CC-BY-SA does
not give that permission.
Apologies if this misses the point: I am a lawyer not a mapper.
Francis, thank you. And I am a mapper not a lawyer so this may be a dumb
question relating to CC-BY (not CC-BY-SA):
If Section 2 of the Contributor Terms [1] were amended from
Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 below, You hereby grant to OSMF a
worldwide, ...
to
Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF
a worldwide, ...
do you see at least converging compatibility with CC-BY [2]? Or indeed it
is implicit now?
Intent:
(1) Section 4 always was intended to allow and encourage governmental
organisation imports that require attribution under the standard terms
without need for derogation.
(2) Maintain maximum flexibility for future choices. The license used in
section 3 might vary over the next 100 years due to the freedoms in
Section 2 but Section 4 remains immutable. We attribute our sources but
not necessarily force users further down the chain to do so.
If you say "not necessarily force users further down the chain to do so"
isn't that a breach CC-BY terms which, Under 8b, requires "Licensor offers
to the recipient a licence to the original Work on the same terms and
conditions as the licence granted to You under this Licence" [2 below].
Surely if we use CC-BY data, we have for require ("force") users "down the
line" to attibute it to the origional authors.
David
(3) Avoid the attribution chain problem now. Not get into the situation
where end users making maps are forced to check whether just possibly they
are making a map with data from a 100 agencies and have to attribute on
the map. This is the real reason I am twisting and turning not to just
say "we will accept any attribution terms required". We want to migrate
from CCs license specifically because they are not suited, it would be a
great shame to bring back all the ambiguity via the back door.
Mike
[1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms
[2] If a specific topical version is useful,
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/legalcode
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
