Hi, Jean-Christophe Haessig wrote: > I posted a comment on co-ment and on the wiki use cases page, where it > didn’t seem to belong. I was advised to post it here
Maybe those who advised you hoped that you would read the ongoing discussion before posting ;-) Your suggestion is similar to what I recently suggested. Your bullet points are mostly covered by the current ODbL: > * the source of the Produced Work is available under the ODbL (at URL…), Current ODbL mandates[*]that the derivative database on which the Produced Work is based must be available which is similar. > * the authors of the Database are attributed, This is in ODbL. > * any reverse-engineering makes the resulting work covered by the ODbL This is in ODbL. > * using the Produced Work as a database is forbidden (searching, etc). This could be said to amount to reverse engineering and would then not be forbidden but would lead to the database having to be made available under ODbL. Your suggestion that there is a choice of "either" using a share alike license "or" the above actually falls short of our current demands; we are discussing that we might perhaps drop the reverse engineering restriction from share-alike licensed produced works, but until now nobody suggested that the other points (attribution, releasing the base derviative database) should be dropped as well if the Produced Work is share-alike. > Of course, the above assumes that the ODbL will make clear restrictions > on the licensing terms of Produced Works, which seems not quite the case As I hope to have shown, it *is* actually the case. > as of the current version. Other people have been asking how the use of > PWs can be controlled without making restrictions on their licensing > terms (the reverse enginering clause does not require that it is copied > to the PW’s license) Oh yes it does, which is the reason why as it currently stands the OdbL is unsuitable for creating share-alike produced works. > Then, if I understood well, there might be jurisdictions where data is > not copyrightable, which means that any PW under a SA license might be > used to reverse-engineer the DB. This is true, but then again there are jurisdictions where anything goes; I am pretty sure that there are "technically legal" ways even now to extract all our data and put in in another form provided you manage to be on the right soil for every step. So we should perhaps not go over the top. It is unlikely that we'll ever have a license that works in North Korea. Bye Frederik [*] (assuming the use<->convey blunder is fixed but it if it isn't then ODbL is unlikely to be used for OSM) -- 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
