Hi, 80n wrote: > Are ODbL Produced Works really anti-share alike or is there some subtlety > that I have missed?
You could also say that share-alike licenses are "anti-database-protection" or that CC-BY-SA is "anti-CC-BY-SA-NC". Given that "anti..." is very often used to express that something was explicitly made to act or work against something, we should perhaps drop the usage of "anti" here and, more neutrally, just ask for compatibility. I see the same problem you are seeing and I had added a section about this problem in http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Suggested_Changes#The_.22licensing_Produced_Works.22_problem 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 (i.e. someone sets up a tile server with the sole purpose of then paying hundreds of people to trace data off of it). Both solutions are not 100% satisfactory but please keep in mind that we currently have a situation where *one* of a number of share-alike licenses has been selected and we are compatible to *none* of the others, so this can hardly be said to be any better. I think that compatibility of ODbL Produced Works with share-alike licenses is an absolute "must" and I'm prepared to make some concessions regarding the protection of our data to achieve this. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [email protected] ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
