On 17/06/11 15:39, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > > 1. IIRC the newer versions of CC-By-SA include statements to ensure > that the content is not protected by database rights, patents or DRM, > which would prevent their uses. Does that mean that only the older > licenses can be used for produced works?
They just say that they only cover copyright (see 1.h in BY-SA 3.0 Unported). But do look at how the DbCL interacts with the ODbL in Produced Works. There isn't a copyright clash. > Looking at GPLv3 and other licenses it is becoming more common for > licenses to assure that the content is not restricted by those > additional rights, and it makes sense because in some way those > additional rights make the works not "free". Copyright makes the work non-free, but the GPL uses that. :-) And GPL 3 says: "“Copyright” also means copyright-like laws that apply to other kinds of works, such as semiconductor masks.". It also includes a patent licence. So the GPL includes, rather than excludes, those rights in order to ensure that they do not restrict the work. This is the ODbL's strategy as well. Some people disagree with this for coherent philosophical reasons. I disagree with them. :-) > 2. What happens if a person in country A with database rights > publishes a tileset and licenses it under CC-By-SA to a person in > country B without database rights? The second person is then as far > as I can see not bound by database rights or a contract. Is that > incorrect? Copyright may apply in country B. There will be pathological cases where copyright, database right, and contract law do not apply. At the moment, only the first is used though, so there will be even less coverage. (IANAL, TINLA.) - Rob.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
