My apologies if this has been brought up before -- as I mentioned I'm playing catch up to this week's posts on the list. I'm going to just pull some threads in the conversation and comment on them, rather than copying and pasting from people's posts. And just under the deadline...
+++ In terms of what the licence covers and various actions: Copying entire database verbatim, content (data) and all --> copyright, database rights, contract Copying entire database with changes (a derivative database), content (data) and all --> copyright, database rights, contract Taking out all content (data) and making a new database (a derivative database --> database rights and contract +++ Trade secret was mentioned as a "fourth pillar" of protection by JTW. I agree that this isn't appropriate/suitable for an open project, which I've pointed out on this list before, and in fact pointed out as a reason with the Open Data Commons Public Domain Dedication and Licence doesn't waive "unfair competition" in the protocol. <http://www.opendatacommons.org/2007/12/18/unfair-competition-and-the- science-commons-protocol/> A open project using the Open Database Licence could possibly use one of the other areas of "unfair competition" depending on the context and the legal jurisdiction: # Publicity rights; # Trade mark claims; # Passing off (which is a lot like trade mark); # Deceptive advertising; # Other kinds of unfair methods of competition +++ I've seen mentioned a few times the ease of administration between the public domain, the DBL, and/or the CC licences. My opinion is that _of course_ the public domain dedication will be easier. My personal opinion is that hte DBL is easier to administer than the current CC licences, but obviously I'm biased. I really want it to be, and Charlotte and I drafted it to be, easy to use and clear in terms of what it does and doesn't address. The text isn't of course set in stone and can be improved. +++ Testing licences in court. A licence, if it does it's job properly, doesn't end up in court because people are clear about its obligations. I've always been against this idea that any FOSS or open content licence needs to be brought up in court to be effective. I'll leave it at that. +++ Regarding commercial use of OSM materials, as was pointed out that is allowed under the current licence, under FOSS like the GPL, and in the Open Data Commons Database Licence. This is not a licensing issue under the DBL as it doesn't have a commercial restriction. +++ Regarding enforcing the Open Database Licence via contract. Yes, the more you treat the data like a software End User License Agreement (EULA) the clearer the contract case -- clickwrap, terms and conditions, signing up to access the API, and the like would all be ways to strengthen the contractual relationship. +++ I think one of the questions is, what does the current CC licence cover now? The licence is I believe CC-BY-SA 2.0, which is the former "generic" version and based on US law. <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/> It does not: -- explicitly state that it operates by contract as well as a copyright licence -- cover EU database rights The ODL does both of these things. +++ In relation to the preceding, the ODL is designed to work worldwide and to provide an easier to use and more tailored legal tool that CC- BY-SA, which was the previous option. I think it does this, but again I'm biased. However the ODL does not: -- create copyright in jurisdictions where none exists -- create database rights where none exist (either because the database doesn't qualify or because database rights don't exist). Is the licence going to work perfectly in every jurisdiction for geodata? I don't know. Are there problems of copyrightability and existence of database rights and relying on contract to enforce the rights? Yes. See Charlotte Waelde's article quoted elsewhere (she is one of the co-authors of the ODL by the way). +++ I think that there has been some mention of the public domain and its applicability in some jursidictions, such as France. I think that the PDDL (the other Open Data Commons licence) covers this with the use of a BSD style licence as a part of it when the PD dedication doesn't work. Thanks! ~Jordan ____ Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM jordan at opencontentlawyer dot com OC Blog: http://opencontentlawyer.com IP/IT Blog: http://twitchgamer.net Open Data Commons <http://opendatacommons.org> Usage of Creative Commons by cultural heritage organisations http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/studies/cc2007 _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk