dOn 04/01/11 15:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
== ODbL ==
The OpenData licence requires attribution, and for that attribution to be
maintained on subsequent derivatives. ODbL provides that. (My reading of
ODbL 4.3 is that "reasonably calculated" imposes a downstream attribution
requirement on Produced Works: after all, if you wildly license your
Produced Work allows it to be redistributed without attribution of sources,
you haven't reasonably calculated that any person "exposed to" it will be
aware of the database and the licence.)
Yes that's a good reading of the licence (IANAL, TINLA).
As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and
this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence.
The ODbL is not explicitly described as a modular extension or
composition of ODC-BY but the ODbL does describe itself as "attribution
[...] for Data/Databases" and the attribution terms of ODC-BY are
*identical* to the ODbL. And the OGL explicitly states that it is
complicit with any ODC attribution licence.
(It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. "If it is not practical to
cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good
practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in another
file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.")
That is sane guidance *for the database*, but it may not satisfy the
attribution requirement of its *contents*. This is hopefully irrelevant
as the OGL states that it is compatible with any ODC attribution licence
Personally I find it helpful to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of an
ODbL-licensed OS OpenData; this makes it easy to follow through the
attribution requirements for anything OSM-derived that contains a
substantial amount of OS OpenData.
Yes this is a very useful thought experiment.
The DbCL isn't mentioned by the OGL *but* the DbCL explicitly states
that you must comply with the ODbL, which appears to be an ODC
attribution licence as described by the OGL.
== Contributor Terms ==
AIUI the attribution requirement is also compatible with CT as of the 1.2.2
revision (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb&pli=1). The
CTs need a bit of a polish for style (Francis Davey has made good
suggestions here) but the intention is clear enough.
The Rights Granted section (2) now begins "Subject to Section 3 and 4
below". The "and 4" is new (added at my request).
Section 4 is a promise of attribution, as required by the OpenData licence.
So you are not being asked to grant OSMF any rights that the OpenData
licence doesn't give you.
I agree that the attribution promise is a complete answer to any
attribution requirements or concerns.
The contributor terms don't guarantee the "don't break the law" and
non-misrepresentation parts of the OGL. The former is pretty redundant,
the latter isn't present in ODC-BY or the ODbL, and the OGL is
explicitly compatible with any ODC attribution licence.
Thank you for posting this. You have allayed my concerns. :-)
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
