Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?
Hi, Ulf Möller wrote: Are you saying that CC doesn't apply to a Produced Work at all because it is not a copyrightable work of authorship? No, Richard's argument was that a Produced Work could be seen as having two components; one being the copyrightable work of authorship, which would be governed by the CC-BY-SA license and which may not be further restricted; the other being a derivative database under the database directive which is outside the scope of CC-BY-SA. The idea that other regulations than the license itself can govern a CC-BY-SA licensed product is not entirely made up; think of publishing an R rated film under CC-BY-SA where you will be required to add the restriction to not sell it to under-18s (depending on jurisdiction etc etc). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?
On 6 Mar 2009, at 16:11, 80n wrote: I may have got this all wrong but it seems to me that Produced Works are potentially compatible with most licenses, but are not compatible with most share alike licenses. I hope this isn't right and that someone can explain the flaws in my reasoning. I can create a Produced Work and publish it under MyWTF license [1]. If I'm the author of the MyWFT license then I can put whatever clauses I like in it providing I admit the ODbL reverse engineering clause and provide the appropriate attribution. However if I try to publish a Produced Work under a share alike licence like CC-BY-SA then I am bound to the inevitable clause that will prevent me from attaching any *additional* constraints to the license. In the case of CC-BY-SA this would be clause 4a which says You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License... So I can't add the extra reverse engineering clause that ODbL requires. Since every share alike license, almost by definition, will have a clause like this there seems to be no way that I can publish a Produced Work under any share-alike license. So, I can publish the Produced Work using any license I can dream up, no matter how draconian, unless it contains a share-alike clause. Are ODbL Produced Works really anti-share alike or is there some subtlety that I have missed? This is really something we need a legal view on. Personally and in discussion with our lawyer we feel there is probably a contradiction with the license as drafted and we are looking at it in more detail to see what can be done. I believe that we must allow Produced Works to be CCBYSA and I can't see that anything else would make any sense. We should be aware that we might end up coming to the same conclusion that Creative Commons did, that the only solution that doesn't block some of the important things we do want to allow is to use something like the 'Open Access Data' protocol they are proposing. To be clear we haven't come to that conclusion yet, but there are some significant issues in defining Produced Works, Collective Databases and Derivative Databases to make some key Use Cases work as desired. Regards, Peter Regards, Peter 80n [1] The MyWTF license: 1) Hands off, its all mine. 2) Any data created from this work that constitutes a substantial part of the data contained in the original database is govered by the Open Database Licence (ODbL). 3) This pretty picture contains information from the MyODbL database, which is made available here under the Open Database Licence (ODbL). ___ 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?
Richard Fairhurst wrote: there are three things that spring to mind I meant four (no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition, etc.). 4. OSMF can request additional permissions over and above ODbL from its users, as part of the new user sign-up, or the licence change agreement. (Effectively dual-licensing.) The ability to relicence as CC-BY-SA could be specified as an additional permission if we so decided. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Are-Produced-Works-anti-share-alike--tp22375518p22376308.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: 1. Creative Commons licences define Work (which you're quoting in the case of 4a) as the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of this License (1e). I.e., as we know by now, CC-BY-SA is defined and enforced by copyright. That's a very good point. The Dutch CC licences covered database right as well, I don't know if they still do. So 4a may not, in my reading, forbid conditions being added by contract or database right, because these are simply outside the scope of the CC licence. Secion 6.2 of BY-SA UK 2.0 says: This Licence constitutes the entire Licence Agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. But as you point out, the work is the *copyrighted* work. This kind of non-copyright control is something that the GPL has worked very hard to avoid. Patents, trademarks, trade secrets, DRM Law and Tivoisation are all excluded by the GPL. It might not be good to set the opposite precedent for BY-SA. Very often CC-BY-SA items will be conveyed with contractual restrictions: Andy A cited the other day that the cycle map has its own Ts Cs, for example. Given 6.2 that doesn't sound right where they are additional conditions for the *copyrighted* work or that cover the BY-SA part of a collective work. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?
I don't think we want to provide a bypass for the reverse engineering clause, so much as ensure that it can be an SA produced work plus no reverse engineering combined. Cheers, Andy Who should be out on his bike mapping Dolgellau instead of reading legal-talk on holiday... On 6 Mar 2009, at 16:55, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Richard Fairhurst wrote: there are three things that spring to mind I meant four (no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition, etc.). 4. OSMF can request additional permissions over and above ODbL from its users, as part of the new user sign-up, or the licence change agreement. (Effectively dual-licensing.) The ability to relicence as CC-BY-SA could be specified as an additional permission if we so decided. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Are-Produced-Works-anti-share-alike--tp22375518p22376308.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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
