On 02/02/11 15:59, Jonathan Harley wrote:
By referring to a collective whole, it seems to me that the license is
asserting that such a thing can exist. I think Peter is right - as long
Oh I see, I didn't realise that's the wording of the licence.
That's an unfortunate turn of phrase then. :-) I'll suggest it's changed
for CC 4.0.
2.0 UK states:
""Collective Work" means the Work in its entirety in unmodified form
along with a number of other separate and independent works"
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/uk/legalcode
Flattened layers are not separate or independent.
2.0 unported gives some good examples of what is meant by a "collective
work":
""Collective Work" means a work, such as a periodical issue, anthology
or encyclopedia"
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode
The examples are of discrete, spatially separated aggregations of
separate entities.
Flattened layers are unambiguously derivative works.
as the CC-BY content is unmodified, it can be assembled with other
things to form a collective work. The CC-BY licenses do not say that
they still have to be separate and independent after assembly, just before.
It says precisely that they must be unmodified, separate and independent
after collection.
Otherwise they are derivative works.
Layers combined destructively (such as in print) are modified, and so
are an adaptation.
Firstly, the topmost layer is clearly unmodified by this kind of
combination.
The derived work that exists as a result of combining it with the
underlying tiles makes it an adaptation as per UK BY-SA 2.0 1.c
If a CC-BY tile is below the top layer, then yes, you could
argue that it is either modified, or no longer being used whole, by
parts of it being hidden. But if we're talking about using OSM data,
I do argue that, and it is the case. But I also argue that it is being
combined with other material to create a derivative work, rather than
placed alongside it to make a collective work.
In either case it is an adaptation and therefore a Derivative Work.
which is made up of points, as long as they're unmodified before
"assembly" - ie rendering - then I still think it's a collective work
But the rendering of those points, as a derivative of them, is under BY-SA.
and only has to be attributed, not restricted to the same license.
If it was a collective work then yes.
ODbL is much clearer about this, but has this same effect - produced
works have to be attributed but it doesn't attempt to force a license on
them, only on the database they came from.
ODbL is explicitly a database copyleft. It does "force" a licence on the
producers of produced works, and the attribution is "forced" on the
produced works as a way of advertising this.
(IANAL, TINLA).
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
