Talk:Open Database License Relicensing FAQ
Where are the mechanisms to tag certain parts as public domain
... and where are the filters to extract only those parts which are PD?
Example: OSM collected data from OpenGeoDB which is public domain. New opengeodb tags where introduced which mark opengeodb data, in order to update them on occasions. There's no way back from OSM to opengeodb to update changes over there.
How may I merge data from various sources
What will happen when I combine OSM data with ODL and data from another source which does use e.g. a CC license? It would be derived work which WOULD have to take BOTH licenses, although they might exclude each other? It would not be allowed to combine data since the result could not use a proper license?
I wonder how many authors might respond to questions whether they actually would permit to transfer their data from one license to another one. Maybe this mechanism could be automated somehow whether those authors would permit to publish e.g. derived word within another license - or how to split OSM data in three parts: Public Domain, ODL or CC-BY-SA2.
"we could lose large datasets"
I suggest to delete the sentence "If OSM changed to public domain, these contributors have indicated they would withdraw their data. In particular, we could lose large contributions such as the entire Netherlands dataset donated by AND." because (a) AND never said they would withdraw in that case so it's speculation; I know there is the world "could" but then you could also write "In particular, we could be nuked from orbit" or so. And (b) I do not want the project to be seen as being dependent on large (commercial) contributions - this sounds like "we cannot do what we want because some companies would not like it". Bad PR. I am going to carry out this deletion unless there is a good reason for leaving the sentence in. --Frederik Ramm 11:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
- Clarified. --Richard 13:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
When will the switch take place?
The problems with the current license were being discussed already when I entered the project months ago, and I totally agree that the legal situation is hardly tolerable. However, little actual progress seems to have been made. Even worse, a license switch is becoming more difficult as we now have more contributors, some other people might have left the project until now and are thus hard to contact. Moreover, the risk of having to delete data with more than one contributor – where a single one refuses to switch – might become quite nasty. So my question is: Is any legally skilled person currently working on this and, if yes, when will we be able to get the switch done? --Tordanik 15:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Saying that the new licence will give 'greater protection' to the data is a loaded term. You could equally well say it will give 'greater restriction' or 'less usefulness'. It would be better to use neutral language rather than copying the rhetoric of the 'intellectual property' lobbyists. For example, say that the new licence will impose additional obligations that will make it harder to (insert undesirable activity here...) Ed Avis 28 February 2009 (signature added)
"what we meant when we said by-sa"
In the FAQ it says:
But if you create an "integrated experience" (e.g. mashup or cartography), the share-alike licence only applies to the map data.
In essence, we believe it is"what we meant when we said by-sa".
I don't agree. What I meant by BY-SA when I contributed to OSM was that all derived works including mashups or cartography must follow the SA principle. Therefor section "4.5 Share Alike does not apply" of the proposed ODbL (v0.9) must be removed. --Lutz.horn 20:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello copyright-knowledgeable people. Beside helping here with OSM I'm currently contributing to the Mapping Sudan project (a Google MapMaker-based project) on a humanitarian basis. In this context I just had a short email exchange with a UN representative concerning the use of "their" data in online contexts such as Google Map and OSM. My understanding is that everybody's hands are a tied because the licenses are largely incompatible. I.e. Google can't use the data because they are a commercial organization and the UN data forbids commercial use without written consent. But OSM can't use it either because the data remain proprietary (in some cases the UN itself is a licensed intermediary rather than the owner) and can't be associated with OSM's share-alike license. While of course it would be technically possible to show the data as a read-only layer the problem in both contexts is the participatory, user-aided nature of these projects and in particular the question: what happens to work that is derived from, say, UN data + OSM Data (i.e. UN Data + Bing Imagery)? Meanwhile, people that could be helped by this data being available through Google Maps or OSM aren't, and at least in some cases I presume, they die. Can anything be done? -- Manu3d 12:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)