There has been some confusion on legal-talk and OKC-talk about when the Share Alike requirement for Derivative Databases becomes mandatory. In my first reading of ODbL draft v0.9 I incorrectly thought that Public Use of a Produced Work created with a Derivative Database triggered Share Alike of that Derived Database.
Readings of that same version by Frederik Ramm and Richard Fairhurst have convinced me that draft v0.9 says that Public Conveyance of the Derived Database requires Share Alike of that Derived Database. And I asked Jordan, over on OKC which it was? Jordan has turned the tables on me and asked, which do we want? Great. I just wanted to know which it was. Now I get to do some thinking and expend some energy on this rather than sitting on the sidelines and making snide comments. On reflection, I'm convinced that neither of the two proposed Share Alike triggers is evil. In fact I can make an argument for each with gratuitous Free Software references. Here we go. Share Alike triggered by Conveying the Derived Database is like the GPL The GPL obliges us to include the source when we modify and distribute GPL software. This ODbL trigger option is an exact analogue of the GPL. If you are not distributing the software (database), you need not provide the source. So if I modify GPL software and run in on my server, I don't have to share my changes or provide the source to my clients. I have not distributed the modified GPL software. This has been called the application service provider loophole or ASP-hole in the GPL. I'm sure you can find many examples of companies that take advantage of this if you just look with a popular search engine. Compare to ... Share Alike triggered by Public Use of a Produced Work from a Derived Database is like the AGPL (Affero GPL) The Affero GPL addresses the application service provider loophole in the GPL by requiring that Affero GPL licensed software include an option to display the source. I'm still free to modify the AGPL software to suit my needs and still free to run it on my server. I'm still free to make lots of money from my clients that love my modified version of the AGPL software. If I later decide to distribute my modified AGPL software, the regular GPL source protections still apply. But because the ASP-hole has been closed, my clients can see and use the changes I've made. And so can the upstream project. This proposed Share Alike triggered by Public Use of a Produced Work from a Derived Database is like the AGPL. The AGPL (Nov 2007) is a newer license than the GPL and was created to address the perceived need to block the application service provider loophole in the GPL. So what do we want? Original with image :-) http://weait.com/content/when-should-derived-database-share-alike-be-required Straw poll http://weait.com/content/when-should-derived-database-share-alike-be-required-poll _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
