> Another very similar example is the Creative Commons movement. There are > many photos and pieces of music and even films out there that come under > a Creative Commons Share Alike license and the model is commonly > considered a success. It is great that I can use a photo I find on > flickr in a presentation. Its great that I can use a piece of music in a > podcast without problems. And my whole presentation or podcast doesn't > have to come under the same license as the original work just because of > that. Again, as with the Linux kernel and the stuff that people build on > it, I can choose any license they want for the presentation or podcast. > Sure, if I use some CC-BY-SA image and change it a little bit, I can't > change the license. But the overwhelmingly predominant use of Creative > Commons licensed work is not in this way, but by including the work in > some larger work where the "collective work" instead of the "derivative > work" rule gives me the right to do anything I want.
Frederik, This is, IMHO, the most fundamental question in this discussion- what the distinction is between a derived work and a collective work? In your example of a presentation, I can see what you mean quite clearly: A picture in a book could hardly be considered the entire book. And for software, we have interfaces which define how various software components talk to one another, so the distinction is also clear. I'm less clear about this distinction with a map. Let's say I'm an academic and I want to use OSM as part of my research. As part of my university project, I use sensor data to collect various information. Then I combine this data with data from OSM and make calculations based on my findings- say temperature based on proximity to certain types of amenities offered in the nearby stores. I don't have a clear sense of whether the resulting data is a collective work or derived work. Knowing the answer to this, even if the answer is "no", is a good thing- it will people a clear sense of what's going on and reduce the concerns based on the unknown. > Now back to OpenStreetMap. A very typical use of OSM data at the moment > is to create maps from it and then build some kind of application on top > of that. Personally, I think this will change, and OSM could become a vital component in larger projects, such as that described above, or possibly used as a data source such as is so often discussed by semantic web utopians. But then again, I'm often wrong. :) > ODbL tries to reduce this problem by exempting "produced works" from the > share-alike effect, and this is a good thing, but still there will be > many use cases adversely affected by the remaining share-alike for data. I can't speak for others, but the concern I have is just knowing what is, and isn't allowed. This isn't dissimilar to what SteveC and others have said about FUD. In the absence of information, fear naturally arises. Fear isn't productive. I want to emphasize that I also agree with you that OBbL is better than what we have now, and given the choice between what we have now and ODbL, I'd choose it. At the same time, I wish there was more information on the practical implications of this change. How will it protect us in ways CC-BY-SA doesn't now? (this has actually been discussed a lot). What effect (if any) would ODbL have on academics? Would it make it easier for them to use our work? Harder? The same? What effect (if any) would ODbL have on governments using the data, etc? We currently do imports, but how could we use the OBbL to give data back to the governments? I want to emphasize that these questions aren't all negative- they're more "how" questions then "why". I think that there's a lot to be said for the discussion that's come out of the legal group- but I think there are remaining questions which, when answered, could put a lot of people's fears to rest. - Serge _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
