On 5 July 2011 13:14, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> wrote: > I think that's a red herring, isn't it? ODbL imposes additional requirements > over and above DbCL. OSM is not distributing OS OpenData under DbCL alone, > nor does it permit anyone else to do so (subject to the usual 'Substantial' > test, which is of course Database Directive stuff and therefore governs OS's > existing data distribution business anyway). > > What circumstances can you envisage in which OSM-distributed OS OpenData > might not be subject to the provisions of ODbL?
My understanding is as follows: ODbL only covers the database and not it's individual contents. (The example given by OpenDataCommons is a database of photographs, where the database could be covered by ODbL and the photographs themselves by a suitable contents license -- which could be DbCL or CC-By or something else.) Without a separate license for the contents you're actually unable to distribute any of the contents of the database. (See the preamble in the legal text for ODbL, along with clauses 2.2a and 2.4.) OSM wants to distribute things under ODbL for the database and DbCL for the contents. This means that any submitted data needs to be compatible with both of those licences (or at least the two in combination). DbCL is essentially a copyright waiver on the individual contents, so downstream users only have to worry about complying with ODbL. You're right that it doesn't impose any additional requirements on downstream users. But it does grant them additional freedoms. So you therefore need additional rights to do so from any upstream suppliers. In the context of OSM, the fact that the contents will be under DbCL will enable users to make use "insubstantial extracts" without having to provide any attribution or share-alike or anything else. (Clause 6.2 of ODbL says that ODbL does not impose any restrictions on such extracts, so you're just left with DbCL to comply with.) Without the contents under DbCL -- for example if they were under CC-By (which is fairly close to the OS OpenData Terms), then you'd have to provide attribution even on insubstantial extracts. (Unless of course you tried to use fair use / fair dealing arguments, or claim geodata facts aren't copyrightable -- but I don't think we'd want to rely on these in all jurisdictions.) Because of this difference, I believe we would need permission from OS to distribute derivatives of their data under the specific ODbL+DbCL combination rather than just the ODbL part. It may be that we already have this and Mike just didn't mention it, or it may be that "ODbL+DbCL" is implicit in OS's agreeing to "ODbL", but I think it's something that should be checked carefully. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
