>> That requirement is only for OSMF to provide attribution when they >> distribute the OSM data. It does not force OSMF to require other >> downstream data users to provide similar attribution when they >> distribute derivative works / databases. So this clause would not >> stop OSMF releasing the data as PD as long as OSMF still maintains >> an appropriate attribution page themselves. > > That is true. If OSMF wanted to release the data as PD, it would have to > delete any OS OpenData-derived content first.
However, is there any guarantee that OSMF will remove such data first? (With the current data, there's quite possibly no way to do so even if they wanted to, because of poor attribution standards in the OSM database. And there's nothing in the CTs to make this easier for future data either.) Turning your argument around, you could argue that if the license you use the data under requires something that's not absolutely guaranteed by the CTs, then you are not permitted to make use of that data for OSM under the CTs. Yes, you could then argue that it would be OSMF's fault if they didn't remove the data, but having to argue that in court isn't something that should fall on volunteer mappers. Which all goes to illustrate a major problem with the current (and revised) CTs in that they require users to make legal judgements for which they are then responsible to some extent. I have my view, you have yours. We can agree to differ, but that doesn't solve the problem. Even if OSMF's lawyers says one view is right, that doesn't necessarily make it so, and people following their direction may still later be found to have violated the CTs. Any rulings by OSMF need to be incorporated into the CTs to make things clear. A much better way forward would be for the CTs to allow contributions for which the mapper owns all the IP (for which they can make whatever grant of right to OSMF without problem) plus contributions that include IP from data available under a set of licenses from a list defined (and updateable) by OSMF. OSMF would then be the ones deciding precisely which licenses are suitable, and which would impose impossible restrictions for either ODbL or any future licence they may want to consider. For licenses that may conflict with some future OSM license choice (eg those requiring attribution) the CTs could make it clear that such data may need to be removed, and also how such data needs to be marked to make such removal easy (which may be mandating that a separate account be used for edits based on such data). -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
