At 10:11 AM 13/08/2010, 80n wrote: >On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:47 PM, David Groom ><<mailto:revi...@pacific-rim.net>revi...@pacific-rim.net> wrote: >b) Ignoring the Yahoo data, but taking any data that may have had a PD or >CC-BY-SA clause that has be used in import, since these are general >permissions given and they do not explicitly mention granting rights to use in >OSM, I cant possible agree that I have EXPLICIT permission to use them. I have >permission by virtue of they are PD or CC-BY-SA, but not EXPLICIT permission >to do so. > > >David, I don't think that CC-BY-SA is compatible with ODbL, nor with the >Contributor Terms. If you have added content that is licensed under CC-BY-SA >you cannot agree to the Contrbutor Terms. > >I'm sure you know that but your statement above suggests that CC-BY-SA is >compatible with OBdL and CT. It is not.
I have moved this from "[OSM-talk] Voluntary re-licensing begins" to legal talk as it is worth further discussion in view of dilemmas faced by our Australian community. I understand that CC-BY-SA is currently a preferred vehicle for releasing government data. I am inclined to agree with 80n, though in the context that CC-BY-SA licenses on data are just too potentially broad in their virality. I present this for the purposes of discussion and do not see my conclusions as immutable. I focus on Share-Alike, though Attribution is also a consideration. I would also like to note that I am having an email dialogue with Ben Last of NearMap of Australia (http://www.nearmap.com). They allow use of their PhotoMaps to derive information (e.g. StreetMap data) under a Creative Commons Attribution Share Alike (CC-BY-SA) licence. They are being most cordial and helpful. They are submitting the ODbL for legal review from their own perspective. I hope they will share some of the conclusions they reach, both for the perspective and the authoritative opinion. ---------------------- To grossly paraphrase, a GNU type software license it works like this: Write a word processor --X--> Write a book with the software. Virality remains in the software, it is NOT transmitted to the book. It IS possible to use other non-compatible software to make the book. But if the software is improved to write the book and software is published, then software improvements must be available Share Alike. ODbL is slightly stronger: Create map data --X--> Make a map Virality remains in the data, it is not transmitted to the map except in reverse engineering out the data. It is possible to use other non-compatible data to make the map under certain conditions. But if the data is improved and the map or the data is published, then data improvements must be available Share Alike. But if CC-BY-SA license is used to try on information rather than the virus can potentially just keep on going. It all depends on what the original publisher feels they want to exert(?). Here is a real dilemma being faced by the Australian community: Aerial imagery under CC-BY-SA -----> Create map data with some imagery tracing -----> Pull out a single lat/lon and put it in a book; make a map; ... ODbL breaks the chain at the second "----->", either because the extract is not substantial or because the right-hand item is a Produced Work. CC-BY-SA does not, or at least you'll need to clarify with the original publisher(?). Personal conclusion: The CC-BY-SA license are great on fully creative works. It was never intended to be applied to highly factual data and information, and if it is, it is vague and confusing. If you believe strongly in pandemic virality, then it is a good thing. If you believe that all the chain of Share-Alike and Attribution should be far more constrained, then it is just dangerous and should be avoided. Which is why most of us want to move away from it as our own license. Our primary goal is disseminating data we collect ourselves. Mike
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk