Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
Frederik Ramm frederik@... writes:
It looks like with the release of CC 4.0 there may be two share-alike
licenses suitable for data with different copyleft provisions. CC with a
stronger copyleft and ODbL with a weaker one that allows produced works
under a non-free license.
I don't think it is as simple as that; the requirement to share the
derivative database that stands behind a produced work seems to be
stronger than what CC does.
The way I see it is that there are two ways to play.
If you want to be fully open then you distribute your new work in data form
so that it is easy for others to build on further. You distribute it as a
Derivative Database, and under the exact same terms you received the input data.
In that case the licence does not (or should not in my view) put any obstacles
in your way. You are giving others exactly the same rights you yourself
received, so you can just get on with your work and distribute the result
without further hassle.
However, for those who don't want to be quite so open, the ODbL has made a
concession by allowing the concept of a Produced Work. Your resulting work
does not have to be licensed under any particular terms. However, if you want
to take advantage of this option, then it is your responsibility to publish the
intermediate databases you used.
The one thing that CC does allow which ODbL may or may not (depending on the
legal definition of 'database') is to make a derived work which is much simpler
in structure and publish it under the same terms you received the data, without
disclosing anything further. For example, making a human-viewable map image
from the computer-readable OSM map. I would argue that this can be done too
in the ODbL case, by publishing your map tiles as Derivative Databases under
the ODbL, since I've not seen anything to suggest that a raster image file is
not also a database in law. But opinion differs on this point.
I believe your example of a route planner producing directions is similar here:
it is a much simpler work ('turn left, then right') derived from the larger
map database. But certainly a set of directions is itself a database, as anyone
who programmed LOGO knows.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
Hi, minor point of correction: On 04/10/12 12:32, Ed Avis wrote: However, for those who don't want to be quite so open, the ODbL has made a concession by allowing the concept of a Produced Work. Your resulting work does not have to be licensed under any particular terms. However, if you want to take advantage of this option, then it is your responsibility to publish the intermediate databases you used. You only have to publish (or more precisely, make available on demand) the last in a chain of intermediate databases, the one from which your produced work was made. 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
From my side it would be also interesting to be able to move CC-content (e.g. from Wikipedia - WikiData -Open Government) to OSM. Not sure how to make it compatible in this direction, perhaps is dual-licensing a solution. Greetings Kolossos ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
On 04/04/2012 01:33 PM, Ed Avis wrote: I guess the number 1 requirement for CC4, from an OSM point of view, is that it be interoperable with the ODbL. I recommend that people define compatible and interoperable thoroughly when discussing them, as they can mean different things in different contexts. GNU GPL compatibility, for example, basically means derivatives of the work can be covered by the GPL. Having read the current 4.0 draft (and IANAL), I think SA 4's proposed database right copyleft clashes with the ODbL's: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0_Drafts http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/c/cc/4point0_draft_1.txt Section 2 – License. (a) Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to: [...] (3) where the Licensed Work is a database, in addition to the above, extract and reuse contents of the Licensed Work, [...] Section 3 - License Conditions. The rights granted in Section 2(a) of this Public License are expressly made subject to and limited by the following conditions: [...] (c) ShareAlike. If you Share an Adaptation, (1) You must release it under the terms of one of the following: (i) this Public License, [...] I will raise this on odc-discuss. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
From: Rob Myers [mailto:r...@robmyers.org] Sent: Saturday, April 07, 2012 10:08 AM To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft) On 04/04/2012 01:33 PM, Ed Avis wrote: I guess the number 1 requirement for CC4, from an OSM point of view, is that it be interoperable with the ODbL. I recommend that people define compatible and interoperable thoroughly when discussing them, as they can mean different things in different contexts. GNU GPL compatibility, for example, basically means derivatives of the work can be covered by the GPL. Having read the current 4.0 draft (and IANAL), I think SA 4's proposed database right copyleft clashes with the ODbL's: http://wiki.creativecommons.org/4.0_Drafts http://wiki.creativecommons.org/images/c/cc/4point0_draft_1.txt Section 2 - License. (a) Grant. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Public License, Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to: [...] (3) where the Licensed Work is a database, in addition to the above, extract and reuse contents of the Licensed Work, [...] Section 3 - License Conditions. The rights granted in Section 2(a) of this Public License are expressly made subject to and limited by the following conditions: [...] (c) ShareAlike. If you Share an Adaptation, (1) You must release it under the terms of one of the following: (i) this Public License, [...] I will raise this on odc-discuss. It looks like with the release of CC 4.0 there may be two share-alike licenses suitable for data with different copyleft provisions. CC with a stronger copyleft and ODbL with a weaker one that allows produced works under a non-free license. This may be justified - after all, there is the case of the GPL and LGPL where each license has their place. If this happens, it would be nice if the next version of the ODbL allowed for ODbL-licensed databases to also be distributed under CC by-sa, like the LGPL allows you to modify and distribute the modified version under the GPL ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
Hi, On 04/07/2012 07:50 PM, Paul Norman wrote: It looks like with the release of CC 4.0 there may be two share-alike licenses suitable for data with different copyleft provisions. CC with a stronger copyleft and ODbL with a weaker one that allows produced works under a non-free license. I don't think it is as simple as that; the requirement to share the derivative database that stands behind a produced work seems to be stronger than what CC does. Say I use an ODbL database to run a public route planning service, then I will have to share that database. Under CC-BY-SA until now I would have had to share the end result (eg web page displaying route instructions) only, not the full database. In ODbL terms, you publicly use the database and therefore trigger share-alike for the whole database even if in the course of the individual case of one planned route only a fraction of the database actually reaches the end user. CC 4.0 says for share-alike if you share an adaptation, you have to release it under ...; question is whether, they, like ODbL, would define your routing service as sharing the adaptation which is the database, or if in CC's case the adaptation is only the web site with the route instructions... 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
On 04/07/2012 07:14 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, On 04/07/2012 07:50 PM, Paul Norman wrote: It looks like with the release of CC 4.0 there may be two share-alike licenses suitable for data with different copyleft provisions. CC with a stronger copyleft and ODbL with a weaker one that allows produced works under a non-free license. I don't think it is as simple as that; the requirement to share the derivative database that stands behind a produced work seems to be stronger than what CC does. But CC 4.0 also *appears* to allow intermixing unlicensed work in a way that either 3.0 didn't or didn't make obvious (the 4.0 licences are much easier to read...). I intend to discuss this on cc-licenses. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
I guess the number 1 requirement for CC4, from an OSM point of view, is that it be interoperable with the ODbL. Firstly so that those who are building applications using OSM data today would be able to keep doing what they are doing even if OSM started using CC4 in future, and secondly so that any such switchover would not have to delete any non-compliant data (such as imports where permission has been granted for ODbL but not for CC). This is something that Open Data Commons would have to take part in too, since Creative Commons cannot create an ODbL-to-CC migration path on their own. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Creative-Commons 4.0 (first draft)
Hi, I have just seen that Creative-Commons has released a first draft of their new 4.0 license suit and thought it might be of interest to others on this list. ( http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/32157 ) The draft for 4.0 now explicitly licenses database rights and addresses licensing of databases. However, it does not extend restrictions through contract where copyright and database rights do not restrict usage in the first place. It also does not have the concept of produced works. The new draft furthermore addresses attribution in massive collaboration projects more flexibly than previous licenses by not having to attribute all authors if the project wishes so. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/Creative-Commons-4-0-first-draft-tp5614244p5614244.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
