Looks like an bug in ODC-By-1.0 to me. Mildly surprised nobody ever noticed before. Presumption that the text matches the obvious intent and pattern established by previous licenses must've made the bug hard to see.
Mike On 03/27/2015 01:35 PM, Andrew Rens wrote: > Francis you are far from obtuse - my email was unintentionally misleading. > > My apologies, I cut and paste from another email badly. > > What I wanted to ask was this: > > The legal text ofODC-By 1.0 > http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ > > reads: > > "4.2 Notices. If You Publicly Convey this Database, any Derivative > Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, then You must: > > a. Do so only under the terms of this License". > > In other words users of By can only use By downstream. This is unlike CC > By in which users can use other licences downstream. > > The legal text of the OBdL 1.0 > > http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/ > > reads > > 4.2 Notices. If You Publicly Convey this Database, any Derivative > Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, then You must: > > a. Do so only under the terms of this License or another license > permitted under Section 4.4;" > > The text of both require the re-licensing under the originating licence. > ODbL gives some flexibility in 4.4 so is more flexible than By. > > What am I missing? > > > thanks > > Andrew > > > > Andrew Rens > > > > On 27 March 2015 at 16:16, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com > <mailto:fjm...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > 2015-03-27 20:02 GMT+00:00 Andrew Rens <andrewr...@gmail.com > <mailto:andrewr...@gmail.com>>: > > Hi > > I am new to this list although not new to okfn. > > I am hoping to understand the apparent incompatibility of > ODC-By and the ODC-ODbL. > > > They are intended to complement each other much as CC-BY and > CC-BY-SA do. > > > > As most of you know attribution only software licences such as > the BSD's, MIT etc and CC By licence do not require that > derivatives should be licensed under the same licence. However > the ODC-ODbL has the following: > "4.2 Notices. If You Publicly Convey this Database, any > Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective > Database, then You must: > a. Do so only under the terms of this License; > > b. Include a copy of this License or its Uniform Resource > Identifier (URI) with the Database or Derivative Database, > including both in the Database or Derivative Database and in any > relevant documentation" > > The result is that Derivative Databases must be licensed under > the same licence which is effectively a copyleft provision. > > > Yes, precisely. ODC-ODbL is intended to be a copyleft licence, much > like CC-BY-SA, though just slightly more strongly copyleft than > CC-BY-SA v4.0. > > > > But why then have ODC-ODbL? > > > Do you mean, why have ODC-By? > > I am afraid I am obtusely unable to understand your question. > > > > -- > Francis Davey > > > > > _______________________________________________ > odc-discuss mailing list > odc-discuss@lists.okfn.org > https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss > Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/odc-discuss > _______________________________________________ odc-discuss mailing list odc-discuss@lists.okfn.org https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/odc-discuss Unsubscribe: https://lists.okfn.org/mailman/options/odc-discuss
