osm at inbox.org
Thu Dec 15 09:53:26 EST 2011
On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:32 AM, drew Roberts <zotz at 100jamz.com> wrote:
> Well for a close example, consider the ARR music in the BY-SA movie/video Sita
> Sings The Blues. It has always puzzled me a bit on how that all works.
> You don't really have to try that hard to confuse me in this area though.
> Consider "background" pictures, paintings, sculptures, whatever in BY-SA
> photos or videos.
Yeah, exactly. I'm now sorry I brought up GPL because this is really
more of a question about BY-SA (though the same solution ought to work
But when it comes to incorporating more restrictive than BY-SA (MRTBS)
works into BY-SA works, it seems there are two contradictory answers.
One place this has come up is with regard to OpenStreetMap (OSM).
Long story short, they are planning on releasing the OSM database
under ODbL, a MRTBS license. One of the provisions of ODbL says that
you can build a map from an ODbL database, and you don't have to
release that map under ODbL. However, it is claimed that if you
reverse engineer the map back into a database, then that reverse
engineered database is, once again, ODbL. So far I don't have a
problem with this. It is essentially an LGPL-like weak copyleft.
(You can make a program with an LGPL library, you don't have to
release the program under LGPL, and if someone reverse engineered the
program and extracted the LGPL library, that library would still be
But the claim some are making is that it is permissible to take an
ODbL database, make a map, mash up that map with a CC-BY-SA work, and
then release the derivative under CC-BY-SA. And that anyone then
reverse engineering the CC-BY-SA map back into a database would have
an ODbL database.
The way I see it, one could interpret CC-BY-SA to allow this. But if
so, it is horrible. It means the copyleft of CC-BY-SA can be
subverted. (It also, presumably, means you can incorporate a BY-NC
work into a BY-SA one.)
More information about the cc-community