On Sun, Aug 29, 2010 at 12:44 AM, Grant Slater <openstreet...@firefishy.com> wrote: > On 28 August 2010 15:37, jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com > <jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote: >> please see this as well, >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/ODbL_comments_from_Creative_Commons >> > > What is missing there is that Creative Commons have said that a > CC-BY-SA license is not suitable for a database of factual > information. > Quote: "Creative Commons does not recommend using Creative Commons > licenses for informational databases, such as educational or > scientific databases." > Reference: http://sciencecommons.org/old/databases/ > > Creative Commons gave up in their attempt to creates a > Sharealike/Attribution license for factual information: > Reference: > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2009-February/001982.html
Well, lets look at this for a minute. <<We started out endorsing the use of CC licenses on the <<"copyrightable elements of databases" but not the data itself. After <<about three years of research we decided that was a really Bad Thing if <<what we wanted was data integration. Factual information is one thing, the fact that the Eiffel tower is in paris can be copied, but the osm map of the Eiffel tower is not really the fact, but someones "copyrightable elements", someone drew it there based on facts. Really, I am not worried about data integration, but getting data. It does not bother me that other people cannot just take my work and use it under a different license. My purpose in creating a map is just that, to create a map, to share it, to work with others to create a good map. Integration with other maps is not the purpose or the goal. > ODbL solves the issues they had with the produced works provision. > > ODbL is a license that was designed with OpenStreetMap in mind by the > legal team from Open Data Commons. It covers factual information and > preserves the Attribution and Share-Alike provisions that exist under > our CC-BY-SA license. So why is it not compatible? why do we need to relicense? > >> they say the odbl is not a copyleft license but a contract... >> > > Yes it is true that it is a contract. It is contructed this way to > make sure that internationally everyone gets the same deal. European > Union has the "Database Directive" but most other countries do not. > I strongly believe the ODbL is a copyleft license. The GPL software > license was used as a model for creating the ODbL. copyleft is not a contract, it is copyleft. copyleft is based on copyright and not a contract. please reread the gpl, read moglen; http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/my_pubs/lu-12.html """The essence of copyright law, like other systems of property rules, is the power to exclude. The copyright holder is legally empowered to exclude all others from copying, distributing, and making derivative works. This right to exclude implies an equally large power to license--that is, to grant permission to do what would otherwise be forbidden. Licenses are not contracts: the work's user is obliged to remain within the bounds of the license not because she voluntarily promised, but because she doesn't have any right to act at all except as the license permits. """ Basically , you are asking us to give up our copyright and contract our data out to you, but what do we get in return? I don't see a need for this at all. -- James Michael DuPont Member of Free Libre Open Source Software Kosova and Albania flossk.org flossal.org _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
