On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:28 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Matt Amos <zerebub...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:53 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: >> > I don't know, I find it somewhat mind-boggling that a site like OSM >> > would >> > even consider resorting to "browse-through license agreements" in order >> > to >> > impose terms which go beyond that of copyright. It's the exact oppose >> > of >> > what I'd expect from a site which calls itself "open" and "free". >> >> i'm not sure i understand your point. OSM has a license which (tries >> to) impose requirements on the re-use of the data, but that's still >> "open" and "free", right? > > CC-BY-SA doesn't try to impose any requirements which go beyond copyright > law.
you keep saying this, but i still don't understand. CC BY-SA imposes requirements *using* copyright law. ODbL imposes requirements *using* database law and contract law. > Agreeing to CC-BY-SA can only give me, as the licensee, *more* rights, > not take any away. "Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, > or restrict any rights arising from fair use, first sale or other > limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright > law or other applicable laws." CC-BY-SA is a unilateral conditional waiver > of rights. ODbL, on the other hand, is a standard bilateral contract. which still gives you *more* rights. >> we're talking about moving to another >> license with very similar requirements, but a different >> implementation, and that's not "open" and "free" anymore? it would >> really help me if i could understand your position. > > Creative Commons said it better than I can: from my reading of creative commons comments they're saying something very different from what you seem to be saying. but maybe i'm just misunderstanding you. [ note: i've excerpted those sections which i thought were relevant] > The result is that the ODbL can in certain > circumstances impose obligations and restrictions on users under a contract > theory, rather than based on a protection afforded by statute, common law, > or other recognized right. indeed. this is kind of the point: the US and some other jurisdictions don't yet have a database rights law, so to enforce similar restrictions to CC BY-SA it's necessary to use some other method. > Thus, it is not clear under the ODbL whether providers would have an > independent breach of contract claim, in addition to an infringement claim, > or even in the absence of an infringement claim, for any violations of the > “license” (or alternatively, contract). > > This is important for several reasons. First, as discussed above, due to > legal variations in copyright doctrines among different countries, as well > as the availability of sui generis protection in some countries but not in > others, there may be cases where an infringement claim is not available to a > provider because no underlying property right exists. However, in such > cases, could the provider seek to enforce a provision of the ODbL, such as > the share-alike provision, under a contract theory instead? i think that's the idea, yes. > And if it could > do so, would that constitute an extension of protection beyond the scope > intended by existing statutory schemes? For example, could data or databases > that fail to qualify for copyright protection under U.S. law due to lack of > the requisite level of creativity nevertheless be made subject to the > share-alike provision in the U.S. under a contract theory? that's part of the point of ODbL, yes. > Could this be > applied to individual data elements that are not themselves > copyrightable—such as sensor readings or basic facts and ideas? no, the ODbL explicitly doesn't cover individual elements of the database, covering the database as a whole (or substantial part) instead. > Could > European sui generis database rights be enforced against a U.S. user on the > basis of the existence of a contractual relationship created by the ODbL?" i don't really understand this question - the requirements of the ODbL can be enforced against a US user on the basis of a contractual relationship, but i don't think that equates to EU database rights. the ODbL is the ODbL, not an extension of EU law. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
