On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:58 AM, Rob Myers <[email protected]> wrote: > On 22/06/11 10:46, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> ODbL's Produced Work is a well thought out answer to this and I would >> certainly not support OSM moving to any licence that did not retain such a >> concept.
ODbL does have differences with BY-SA that go beyond handling of sui generis database rights. Re contract layer, we'll see how that plays out. To me, provision of ~source (4.6 Access to Derivative Databases) is the biggest one, but IANAL (repeat below). I'd wildly guess that produced works could be/have been addressed as an additional permission (a la GPL exceptions) rather than requiring incompatible copyleft. > A hack that might address this is allowing BY-SA to apply either to the > database or to its contents. If it applied to the contents, both the > share-alike and the attribution would apply to extracts from the database. > If it applied to the database, only the attribution requirement would apply > to extracts. The latter would approximate the ODbL. BY-SA on the DB with CC0 > on the content would approximate ODbL/DbCL. No allowing needs to be done; the licensor can already say exactly what they're licensing. Documentation of how this ought be done in this case, yes. > The contract element would be lost, though, despite the fact that contract > law makes more sense for a "share-alike" licence than a "copyleft" one. I'm not sure which distinction you're drawing between share alike and copyleft and would be curious to know why you think contract makes more sense for former. Mike -- https://creativecommons.net/ml _______________________________________________ odc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss
