<div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Sep 6, 2010 at 5:25 PM, John Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:deltafoxtrot256@gmail.com" target="_blank">deltafoxtrot256@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>On 6 September 2010 11:38, Robert Coup <<a href="mailto:robert.coup@koordinates.com" target="_blank">robert.coup@koordinates.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> Nobody is arguing with that. It's just that CC licenses and particularly<br>
> CC-BY-SA don't mean what's "on the cover" with respect to datasets. Creative<br>
> Commons themselves say they shouldn't be used.<br>
<br>
</div>Actually things aren't that simple. Maps were the first things<br>
protected by copyright apparently and according to Francis Davey, who<br>
claims to be a lawyer, copyright law doesn't usually state what form a<br>
map has to be in, to be protected by copyright law.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>A map is clearly a creative work - here we're talking about the *data*. The map tiles are intended to be CC-BY-SA licensed iirc.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Databases are explicitly not covered in a number of jurisdictions (in NZ/Au they are), notably the US - there need's to be "creative expression" which doesn't apply to facts or collections of facts. See <a href="http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable" target="_blank">http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Why_CC_BY-SA_is_Unsuitable</a> - there's very little argument about that part.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div>It also jumps from copyright only to contract law which may put anyone</div>
distributing data on the end of a lawsuit, just so the new<br>
license/contract can be enforced, even if the person downloading the<br>
data from you directly doesn't breach the license/contract directly.<br>
</blockquote></div><div><br></div><div>Can you explain that & provide some references? It uses contract law as well as copyright law, but that's a good thing in being able to enforce provisions in jurisdictions where copyright law does not apply. CC allows contributors to sue for infringement.</div>
<br>I'm not saying ODbL is fantastic, just that CC-BY-SA is not suitable, at all. The OSM community & foundation is well aware of the problems (including with ODbL) - personally I'm confident that if the issues become insurmountable then they'll go back to the drawing board again.<div>
<br></div><div>Personally I'm a CC0/Public-Domain kinda guy, but the huge number of contributors who wanted and continue to want a share-alike license need their wishes respected - and with something that is legally meaningful.<br>
<div><br>
</div><div>Rob :)</div></div>