Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

cc-europe - Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0

cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Cc-europe mailing list

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Sarah Pearson <sarah AT creativecommons.org>
  • To: Federico Morando <federico.morando AT polito.it>
  • Cc: "cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org" <cc-europe AT lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [CC-Europe] request for input: database rights in CC v4.0
  • Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 13:50:37 -0800

As Federico points out, I think we are talking about two different scenarios here.

1) A licensor applies BY-SA to a database, in which case it is assumed the license applies to any rights the licensor has in the database structure (copyright and/or SGDRs) and any rights he or she has in the database contents.

2) A licensee extracts and reuses a substantial portion of a BY-SA-licensed database in his own separate database in which he has SGDRs, in which case the obligation to ShareAlike only extends to the rights he has in the database structure (copyright and/or SGDRs).

In any case, it is obvious these concepts are not entirely clear. We will work on refining the definition of Adapted Material to better convey concept #2 above. Does anyone think we should also try to articulate concept #1 in the license text itself, or is this something we should continue to explain outside the license? Alternatively, we would be interested to know if anyone thinks this is the wrong default. (For example, a licensor should have to apply two separate licenses to a database in order to cover its structure and its contents, similar to how the ODbL works.)

Also, I wanted to mention one point related to the third issue for feedback noted in the policy document. As Thomas rightly pointed out, substantiality could be determined quantitatively or qualitatively. However, in all cases it would be determined with reference to the licensed database. Where that licensed database is small, a quantitatively or qualitatively substantial portion may be relatively insignificant. Nonetheless, as currently written in the draft language, that insignificant portion (although substantial when viewed in reference to the database from which it was extracted) will cause entire databases to be shared alike. Is this the right outcome?

best,
Sarah

On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:47 AM, Federico Morando <federico.morando AT polito.it> wrote:
On 01/28/2013 02:07 PM, T. Margoni wrote:
> I am getting a bit lost. With "its content" are we not referring again
> to the same pictures of Federico's example that we agreed are not
> covered by the license?
This is how I understand this point:
- SA does not require the application of the same license to the
pictures in my example (i.e. the viral aspect does not extend to the
content of the database, e.g. in cases in which you add proprietary
content to an existing CC BY-SA-licensed database); but
- if you just apply a CC BY-SA (for instance) license to a database,
your general purpose standard licensing statement ("pointing" to the DB
as a whole) is interpret as concerning the entire database and its content.

So, I think we basically agree, but we're talking about two different
scenarios,

best,

Federico




_______________________________________________
CC-Europe mailing list
CC-Europe AT lists.ibiblio.org
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-europe




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page