I have reworked the main Open Database Licence page (and renamed it)
so that it provides an useful introduction to the whole license
background and the current position to a first time reader.
I have bumped the detailed content from the existing page to a new page.
Check out the page here
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:26 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
CC-BY-SA says:
You may distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly
digitally perform a Derivative Work only under the terms of this License, a
later version of this License with the same License
80n wrote:
It's my understanding that the ODbL is very different from a CC-BY-SA
license, so I think this would be a very unlikely thing to happen.
It's a share-alike licence with some attribution provision - I'd say that,
in fact, the two licences have pretty much the same intent. It's just
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:50 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
It's my understanding that the ODbL is very different from a CC-BY-SA
license, so I think this would be a very unlikely thing to happen.
It's a share-alike licence with some attribution provision -
80n wrote:
It does have a share alike clause but it is different from the CC one.
As it gives the user fewer rights it's hard to see how it would be
compatible.
In the analogue case, GFDL's share-alike is different from CC-BY-SA's, yet
the relicensing happened. The point is that compatible
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 11:34 AM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote:
80n wrote:
It does have a share alike clause but it is different from the CC one.
As it gives the user fewer rights it's hard to see how it would be
compatible.
In the analogue case, GFDL's share-alike is
Legal review of Use Case doco with original Use Case text is now available at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases or go straight
to
http://foundation.openstreetmap.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/2008-02-28_legalreviewofosmlicenseusecases2.pdf
merging several threads here
I am not speaking for CC the organization here - there have been no
conversations to my knowledge about doing a compatibility check between
ODbL and CC licensing. But, I would remind everyone that the current
official CC policy on CC licenses and databases -
80n,
Indeed it is exactly this case I had in mind, where the license gives the
contributor fewer rights. It creates a class of derivative works, called
Produced Works, that are not share alike.
In my opinion, OSM's value is almost entirely in its being a database.
If OSM were not a
Hi
Richard Fairhurst wrote:
FWIW, I do think that the ODbL Produced Work provisions _may_ need
rewording. There seems to be a myth around here that a Produced Work can be
public domain. Clearly it can't - not in the traditional sense of PD -
because of 4.7 (the Reverse Engineering provision
Very roughly (I'm generalising here), in both cases, Derivatives refer =
to a
situation where the entire result is copyleft, Collectives refer to
something where only part of it is.=20
A collective work includes the untransformed work.
A derivative work adapts it in some way.
One can claim
Hi,
Gustav Foseid wrote:
The database directive does not stop you from making a geographic database,
rendering it as a map and then releasing it under something like CC0. I am a
bit unsure what kind of restriction the database directive could possibly
have placed on that map.
Not on the map
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 12:42:57PM -0500, John Wilbanks wrote:
I am not speaking for CC the organization here - there have been no
conversations to my knowledge about doing a compatibility check between
ODbL and CC licensing. But, I would remind everyone that the current
official CC policy
On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 10:58:04PM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Having to grant access to pgsql data base
---
In this use case we look at someone who does nothing more than taking
OSM data and rearranging it according to fixed rules, e.g. by running it
Simon Ward si...@... writes:
The lawyer's answer is: Need clarification here. From my reading, this
example would seem to constitute a Derivative Database under the ODbL.
It’s a database, derived from the original. To me it’s a derived
database. It does need clarifying to say just
15 matches
Mail list logo
