Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?
Hi, Ulf Möller wrote: > Are you saying that CC doesn't apply to a Produced Work at all because > it is not a "copyrightable work of authorship"? No, Richard's argument was that a Produced Work could be seen as having two components; one being the copyrightable work of authorship, which would be governed by the CC-BY-SA license and which may not be further restricted; the other being a derivative database under the database directive which is outside the scope of CC-BY-SA. The idea that other regulations than the license itself can govern a CC-BY-SA licensed product is not entirely made up; think of publishing an "R" rated film under CC-BY-SA where you will be required to add the restriction to not sell it to under-18s (depending on jurisdiction etc etc). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?
Richard Fairhurst schrieb: > 1. Creative Commons licences define "Work" (which you're quoting in the case > of 4a) as "the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of > this License" (1e). I.e., as we know by now, CC-BY-SA is defined and > enforced by copyright. > > So 4a may not, in my reading, forbid conditions being added by contract or > database right, because these are simply outside the scope of the CC > licence. 4a doesn't allow _any_ terms that restrict the recipients' rights, regardless of what the restrictions would be based on. Are you saying that CC doesn't apply to a Produced Work at all because it is not a "copyrightable work of authorship"? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?
On Fri, Mar 06, 2009 at 07:19:50PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > yesterday. (I'm a bit miffed that neither you nor any of the respondents > seem to follow relevant stuff on the Wiki. Or well, maybe you all did > and just found my contribution not worthy of note. Sigh.) In that > section, I make two concrete suggestions how to remedy this; one being > the explicit exception of a list of share-alike licenses from the > reverse engineering clause, the other being a clarification of the ODbL > reverse engineering clause to *only* work for those cases where the > whole thing happens in an orchestrated fashion Another option is for share‐alike licences to acknowledge the potential for a work to be produced from a database. It may insist that the terms of the database be in some way compatible: Database is free, produced work is free, share with others, be happe! Or it could state that it doesn’t cover the rights of an underlying database in any way, and exempt it from the “no extra conditions” of share‐alike, pretty much as the ODbL claims no coverage of copyright on the data. Unfortunately, I don’t see either of those happening any time soon. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?
I don't think we want to provide a bypass for the reverse engineering clause, so much as ensure that it can be an SA produced work plus no reverse engineering combined. Cheers, Andy Who should be out on his bike mapping Dolgellau instead of reading legal-talk on holiday... On 6 Mar 2009, at 16:55, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > > Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> there are three things that spring to mind > > I meant four (no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition, etc.). > > 4. OSMF can request additional permissions over and above ODbL from > its > users, as part of the new user sign-up, or the licence change > agreement. > (Effectively dual-licensing.) The ability to relicence as CC-BY-SA > could be > specified as an additional permission if we so decided. > > cheers > Richard > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/Are-Produced-Works-anti-share-alike--tp22375518p22376308.html > Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at > Nabble.com. > > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?
On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 4:51 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > 1. Creative Commons licences define "Work" (which you're quoting in the case > of 4a) as "the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of > this License" (1e). I.e., as we know by now, CC-BY-SA is defined and > enforced by copyright. That's a very good point. The Dutch CC licences covered database right as well, I don't know if they still do. > So 4a may not, in my reading, forbid conditions being added by contract or > database right, because these are simply outside the scope of the CC > licence. Secion 6.2 of BY-SA UK 2.0 says: "This Licence constitutes the entire Licence Agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here." But as you point out, the work is the *copyrighted* work. This kind of non-copyright control is something that the GPL has worked very hard to avoid. Patents, trademarks, trade secrets, DRM Law and Tivoisation are all excluded by the GPL. It might not be good to set the opposite precedent for BY-SA. > Very often CC-BY-SA items will be conveyed with contractual > restrictions: Andy A cited the other day that the cycle map has its own Ts & > Cs, for example. Given 6.2 that doesn't sound right where they are additional conditions for the *copyrighted* work or that cover the BY-SA part of a collective work. - Rob. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?
Richard Fairhurst wrote: > there are three things that spring to mind I meant four (no-one expects the Spanish Inquisition, etc.). 4. OSMF can request additional permissions over and above ODbL from its users, as part of the new user sign-up, or the licence change agreement. (Effectively dual-licensing.) The ability to relicence as CC-BY-SA could be specified as an additional permission if we so decided. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Are-Produced-Works-anti-share-alike--tp22375518p22376308.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?
80n wrote: > I may have got this all wrong but it seems to me that Produced Works > are potentially compatible with most licenses, but are not compatible > with most share alike licenses. I hope this isn't right and that someone > can explain the flaws in my reasoning. It's an interesting one. I can't say I've thought about it a huge amount, but have been wondering about it in the last week and there are three things that spring to mind. I'm not putting these up in the form of an argument, I know you SA types seem to take great sport in shooting me down at every possible opportunity but I'm genuinely trying to be helpful here. ;) 1. Creative Commons licences define "Work" (which you're quoting in the case of 4a) as "the copyrightable work of authorship offered under the terms of this License" (1e). I.e., as we know by now, CC-BY-SA is defined and enforced by copyright. So 4a may not, in my reading, forbid conditions being added by contract or database right, because these are simply outside the scope of the CC licence. Very often CC-BY-SA items will be conveyed with contractual restrictions: Andy A cited the other day that the cycle map has its own Ts & Cs, for example. (There is the side issue of whether or not a CC licence actually constitutes a contract. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1029366 is a useful treatment and concludes that it isn't, it's a "one-sided permission".) 2. Approaching from the ODbL angle: Identifying CC-BY-SA as "a compatible licence" in ODbL 4.4.a.iii may remove the problem. 3. Approaching from the CC angle: Creative Commons themselves could take a view on whether this situation is something they'd be prepared to permit/encourage, and produce a clarification accordingly. (Ping John W?) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Are-Produced-Works-anti-share-alike--tp22375518p22376237.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?
On 6 Mar 2009, at 16:11, 80n wrote: > I may have got this all wrong but it seems to me that Produced Works > are potentially compatible with most licenses, but are not > compatible with most share alike licenses. I hope this isn't right > and that someone can explain the flaws in my reasoning. > > I can create a Produced Work and publish it under MyWTF license > [1]. If I'm the author of the MyWFT license then I can put whatever > clauses I like in it providing I admit the ODbL reverse engineering > clause and provide the appropriate attribution. > > However if I try to publish a Produced Work under a share alike > licence like CC-BY-SA then I am bound to the inevitable clause that > will prevent me from attaching any *additional* constraints to the > license. In the case of CC-BY-SA this would be clause 4a which says > "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the > terms of this License..." So I can't add the extra reverse > engineering clause that ODbL requires. > > Since every share alike license, almost by definition, will have a > clause like this there seems to be no way that I can publish a > Produced Work under any share-alike license. > > So, I can publish the Produced Work using any license I can dream > up, no matter how draconian, unless it contains a share-alike clause. > > Are ODbL Produced Works really anti-share alike or is there some > subtlety that I have missed? This is really something we need a legal view on. Personally and in discussion with our lawyer we feel there is probably a contradiction with the license as drafted and we are looking at it in more detail to see what can be done. I believe that we must allow Produced Works to be CCBYSA and I can't see that anything else would make any sense. We should be aware that we might end up coming to the same conclusion that Creative Commons did, that the only solution that doesn't block some of the important things we do want to allow is to use something like the 'Open Access Data' protocol they are proposing. To be clear we haven't come to that conclusion yet, but there are some significant issues in defining Produced Works, Collective Databases and Derivative Databases to make some key Use Cases work as desired. Regards, Peter Regards, Peter > > > 80n > > [1] The MyWTF license: > 1) Hands off, its all mine. > 2) Any data created from this work that constitutes a substantial > part of the data contained in the original database is govered by > the Open Database Licence (ODbL). > 3) This pretty picture contains information from the MyODbL > database, which is made available here under the Open Database > Licence (ODbL). > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Are Produced Works anti-share alike?
I may have got this all wrong but it seems to me that Produced Works are potentially compatible with most licenses, but are not compatible with most share alike licenses. I hope this isn't right and that someone can explain the flaws in my reasoning. I can create a Produced Work and publish it under MyWTF license [1]. If I'm the author of the MyWFT license then I can put whatever clauses I like in it providing I admit the ODbL reverse engineering clause and provide the appropriate attribution. However if I try to publish a Produced Work under a share alike licence like CC-BY-SA then I am bound to the inevitable clause that will prevent me from attaching any *additional* constraints to the license. In the case of CC-BY-SA this would be clause 4a which says "You may not offer or impose any terms on the Work that restrict the terms of this License..." So I can't add the extra reverse engineering clause that ODbL requires. Since every share alike license, almost by definition, will have a clause like this there seems to be no way that I can publish a Produced Work under any share-alike license. So, I can publish the Produced Work using any license I can dream up, no matter how draconian, unless it contains a share-alike clause. Are ODbL Produced Works really anti-share alike or is there some subtlety that I have missed? 80n [1] The MyWTF license: 1) Hands off, its all mine. 2) Any data created from this work that constitutes a substantial part of the data contained in the original database is govered by the Open Database Licence (ODbL). 3) This pretty picture contains information from the MyODbL database, which is made available here under the Open Database Licence (ODbL). ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
