On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 1:52 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Richard Weait <rich...@weait.com> wrote: >> >> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, <mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to >> > be forked? >> >> Why not? >> >> The code is in svn and has been for ages, ready for forking. Of >> course, you can't change the license on the GPL code that you fork >> without re-writing it. >> >> The OSM data can be forked now as cc-by-sa as the data is right there >> in planet, ready for forking. You could fork data from an ODbL >> project the same way. Of course the same requirements for relicensing >> would exist. You'd have to essentially replace all of the data to >> relicense the data. >> > Could a fork relicense the Content in a different way? As I understand it > the Content is unrestricted by any license or copyright claim.
there's nothing in the ODbL or contributor terms i can see that would forbid it, but part of the reason for that is the lack of basis in law for protecting individual (or non-Substantial amounts of) Content elements in most jurisdictions. it might work if copyright were asserted in the UK based on the "sweat of the brow" doctrine, but then you'd have to be very careful about not distributing it to the US and other jurisdictions where they follow a creativity doctrine. > Obviously any collection of the Content that forms a substantial amount > would have to be wrapped in ODbL, so I'm not sure what it would mean in > practice, but it seems that someone could re-publish an ODbL licensed > database that contained Content that was restricted by a no-modifications > clause or a non-commercial clause. section 4.8 says, "You may not sublicense the Database. Each time You communicate the Database, the whole or Substantial part of the Contents, or any Derivative Database to anyone else in any way, the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Database on the same terms and conditions as this License. [...] You may not impose any further restrictions on the exercise of the rights granted or affirmed under this License." however, as you point out, this doesn't cover the Contents. i guess it's possible take the stance that there are no rights inherent in individual Contents (as in the US) and therefore any attempt to impose an ND/NC clause on the Contents isn't valid. > I may not have understood the meaning of the Contributor Terms properly, but > clause 2 seems to waive any rights in the Content from the contributors and > I haven't seen anywhere that asserts any additional rights, so am I right to > infer that the Content is not constrained in any way? yes, in non-Substantial amounts i believe so. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
