OpenStreetMap bot removes waypoints after licensing change (The H)
OpenStreetMap bot removes waypoints after licensing change (The H)
Posted Jul 30, 2012 11:43 UTC (Mon) by hummassa (subscriber, #307)In reply to: OpenStreetMap bot removes waypoints after licensing change (The H) by gioele
Parent article: OpenStreetMap bot removes waypoints after licensing change (The H)
For starters, because the ODbL 1.0 does not pass the DFSG? (It has a desert-island-test problem in section 4.6 IIRC...)
Posted Jul 30, 2012 13:36 UTC (Mon)
by gioele (subscriber, #61675)
[Link] (1 responses)
I could not find a detailed analysis of the problems of DFSG with ODBL. Pointers?
The only thing I have seen is <http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2010/08/msg00006.html> there the author says he finds a problem with licence and he does not want it accepted as DFSG-compliant, for the same reasons he do not think that AGPLv3 should be treated as DFSG-complieant. Anyhow, he later admits that AGPLv3 has been accepted as DFSG-compliant by the FTP masters and that ODBL is probably as much compliant as AGPLv3.
Posted Jul 30, 2012 17:27 UTC (Mon)
by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
[Link]
> The ODbL try to enforce EU-style sui-generis database right in jurisdiction where they do not exist in law.
Posted Jul 31, 2012 8:56 UTC (Tue)
by robert_s (subscriber, #42402)
[Link] (5 responses)
The key letter there is the S in DFSG. The DFSG is designed for _software_, and those who wrote it would be the first to point that out.
Unfortunately geodata is one of the most complex corners of copyright law.
Posted Jul 31, 2012 19:44 UTC (Tue)
by nowster (subscriber, #67)
[Link] (1 responses)
Is a PostScript document sent to a printer not software? Can a list of points and lines be software for some virtual machine? The distinction is not clear.
Posted Aug 2, 2012 22:19 UTC (Thu)
by ElCapitano (guest, #86078)
[Link]
Posted Jul 31, 2012 20:12 UTC (Tue)
by hummassa (subscriber, #307)
[Link] (2 responses)
Ah, silly me, but that is *exactly* Debian's definition... Any WORK contained in debian must be Free in accordance to the DFSG.
Seriously, now, geodata is complex because it is not considered everywhere as copyrightable. And the ODbL is not DFSG-compliant, not because it is analog to the AGPL, but both because it does not pass the desert island test and because it tries to emulate database-rights restrictions in jurisdictions where databases do not generate any rights. THAT is why CC-BY-SA was a better license than ODbL for OSM data.
Posted Jul 31, 2012 21:06 UTC (Tue)
by robert_s (subscriber, #42402)
[Link] (1 responses)
Well, it's not just that - it's also about what is considered a derived work.
"THAT is why CC-BY-SA was a better license than ODbL for OSM data."
Except that its fuzziness in the area of geodata had the beautiful dual quality of scaring off potential commercial users while at the same time probably also being unenforceable. Certainly unenforceable against a foe with any real legal budget to speak of as OSM's legal budget is ~0.
Posted Aug 1, 2012 8:16 UTC (Wed)
by epa (subscriber, #39769)
[Link]
OpenStreetMap bot removes waypoints after licensing change (The H)
OpenStreetMap bot removes waypoints after licensing change (The H)
> Any "license" that restrict rights you would have in the absence of a license is non-free (and is actually a contract).
OpenStreetMap bot removes waypoints after licensing change (The H)
OpenStreetMap bot removes waypoints after licensing change (The H)
OpenStreetMap bot removes waypoints after licensing change (The H)
OpenStreetMap bot removes waypoints after licensing change (The H)
OpenStreetMap bot removes waypoints after licensing change (The H)
OpenStreetMap bot removes waypoints after licensing change (The H)