On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:50 PM, David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net>wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "80n" <80n...@gmail.com> > To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > > > Sent: Sunday, August 22, 2010 6:26 PM > Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL - a > philosophical point > > > > On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 5:44 PM, David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net >> >wrote: >> >> Why are we changing the licence? Well [1] states among other things that >>> " >>> [CC-BY-SA] is therefore very difficult to interpret", and we have >>> indeed >>> seen this situation occur many times when people have asked what can and >>> can't be done with OSM data, and no definitive answer could be found. >>> >>> If it was unclear if something was allowed under CC-BY-SA then users of >>> our >>> data were asked to take a cautious approach. And that seems very >>> reasonable >>> stance to take, even though it resulted in a lower than hoped for use of >>> OSM >>> data. So it was decided that since even the OSM community could not >>> categorically say how CC-BY-SA applied to OSM data a licence change was >>> needed. >>> >>> Move forward a bit and we start to implement the new licence. Since we >>> could not reach consensus on how CC-By-SA applied to "our" data, it seems >>> reasonable to assume that we can not assume how CC-BY-SA data applies to >>> other people data, and therefor to be safe I presume we won't simply be >>> blindly importing CC-BY-SA data into OSM. I presume we will be >>> approaching >>> providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA licence and asking if we can use >>> that >>> data in OSM. So our permission to use the data will stem not from a >>> CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit permission given by the copyright >>> holder. >>> >>> Or am I missing something? >>> >>> David, CC-BY-SA licensed content is incompatible with ODbL+CT. >>> >> >> CC-BY-SA derived content would not be allowed in an ODbL version of OSM. >> >> > 80n > Sorry I should have made it clear that I realise that. As I titled the > post, it was more a philosophical point that extended beyond the confines of > the CT's & ODbL. > > David, I know that you realise that. I just wanted to clarify this for the benefit of others reading this thread who may not have the detailed background knowledge or stumble on this thread out of context. > I suppose where it ovelaps with the discussion on CT & ODbl is where I > asked if "we will be approaching providers of data that has a CC-BY-SA > licence and asking if we can use that data in OSM. So our permission to use > the data will stem not from a CC-BY-SA licence, but from the explicit > permission given by the copyright holder". As such it then wouldn't matter > if CC-BY-SA were incompatible eith the CT & ODbL as we would not be relying > on the CC-BY-SA licence, but rather on the explicit permisison. > > David > > > 80n >> >> >> >> >> Furthermore if we don't approach CC-BY-SA providers and ask if we can use >>> their data, then we are using it by virtue of the fact it is CC-BY-SA, >>> and >>> surely the CC-BY-SA permissions "flow though into" the OSM data. In which >>> case nothing has been gained from the licence change process as the same >>> permissions which were there before (and were difficult to interpret) >>> still >>> exist. >>> >>> Apologies if this has been discussed before, but I cant see anything >>> about >>> it on the implementation plan [2] >>> >>> David >>> >>> >>> [1] >>> >>> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/We_Are_Changing_The_License#Why_are_we_changing_the_license.3F >>> >>> [2] >>> >>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Database_License/Implementation_Plan >>> >>> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
