Maurizio, I agree with your analysis: the extension of Sec. 4.2's obligations to "any Derivative Database" seems to make this a share-alike. I suspect that this was missed when Sec. 4.4-4.7 were removed from ODbL to create ODC-BY.
Some discussion going on about this in the web forum: https://discuss.okfn.org/t/is-odc-by-a-sharealike-licence/6417/4 On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 2:14 AM Maurizio Napolitano < maurizio.napolit...@okfn.org> wrote: > I received an email from a lawyer who claims that the text of the > ODB-BY license has a clause which falls under the concept of > share-alike. > But, according this schema, the license is not a SA > http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ > > The issue is related on this side of the text license > > “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;” (followed by > other conditions, but for this discussion only the first condition is > relevant) > > [source: > https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0 ] > _______________________________________________ > 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
