On 22 October 2012 10:44, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> wrote: > Produced Works do not have to be licensed under a share-alike licence. > Attribution is required, as per the above clause. My view is that this > implies a downstream attribution requirement too ("reasonably calculated to > make any Person... exposed to the Produced Work") - besides, in practice, > why wouldn't you want to? - but I think Robert disagrees with me on this.
I can certainly think of cases where you might want to release produced works on a more liberal license -- for instance creating public domain map tiles. However, my interest in this is actually related to determining whether potential source data under certain licenses can be incorporated into an ODbL database. If the source license requires a strict viral attribution, then I think the answer has to be no, since the produced work attribution from ODbL need only point to the ODbL database, not to the source data (even if the data from the particular source dominates what's in the produced work). If the license requires only some sort of attribution chain back to the source, then it may or may not be ok, depending on whether attribution must be maintained in derivatives of produced works. As to whether ODbL requires attribution in derivatives of produced works, I'm not entirely sure. Richard's interpretation above is certainly not unreasonable. However, if the authors of the ODbL had intended there to be viral attribution on produced works, I'm surprised they didn't make it more explicit. I was also wanting to check if there were any other relevant clauses I'd missed. So if anyone else has any thoughts, please do jump in... Thanks, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk