On Fri, Mar 6, 2009 at 6:19 PM, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > anti is indeed a loaded term, but this is an important problem that requires serious discussion. > > 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.) Sorry I only found your annotation at co-ment after I had posted here. > 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. Good point. But one is better than none isn't it? > 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. > Could we use community norms instead of the reverse engineering clause? > > 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 >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
