At 08:36 PM 6/01/2011, John Smith wrote: >On 7 January 2011 05:25, Mike Collinson <m...@ayeltd.biz> wrote: >> Nope. Clause 4 survives any license changes in the future, it is nothing to >> do with the end user license: >> >> 4. At Your or the copyright owners holders option, OSMF agrees to >> attribute You or the copyright owner holder. A mechanism will be provided, >> currently a web page http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution. > >This would only be useful if there is a chain to follow it back to >OSM, this is specific to OS/Nearmap type situations, they don't >require explicit attributions with map tiles, but they do require >attribution can be found, and while OSM offers to attribute on their >website, downstream may not be subject to the same requirements which >is where clause 3 breaks or contradicts clause 4.
Thanks, now I understand. You are entirely correct that there is no perpetual guarantee of a chain to follow back to OSM (and thence to a third party). Clause 4 only provides what I call level 1 attribution as described below. It can survive and is practical and courteous to implement even if the distribution license, (i.e. a successor to ODbL), eventually went completely PD, which is why there is no contradiction or breakage by clause 3. In the case of the UK OS, there is a switch from a potential requirement for level 4 attribution to a clear requirement for level 1, so the Open Government Licence is definitely good news for handling highly granular data. In the case of Nearmap, it is my understanding, Ben might like to comment or contradict, that level 1 is livable with. The real concern being the possible that future OSM generations might want to drop share-alike. In the case of CC-BY, there is some opinion that level 4 is a clear requirement. Since the Australian government, virtually alone, publishes data under this license, I have therefore written to the Australian Attorney General's Office requesting explicit permission to use attribution level 1 and 2 with level 3 on a best effort basis. Mike Third-Party Attribution Levels Level 1: OSM(F) acknowledges third party sources on its website or however technology/social trends change in the future. There is no attempt to get end users of OSM data to do the same. This is what CT clause 4 does, and only this. Level 2: When any OSM data is "published", i.e. copied from an OSM(F) website via a planet dump or API, XAPI call, there is something physically present in the material transferred that acknowledges third parties. It is LWG policy to implement this. That something might be a complete list of third party sources used any where by OSM plus their preferred attribution language. Or it might be a link back to the level 1 attribution statement. At the current level of network bandwidth, the first is impractical for API calls for single nodes. The LWG is therefore adopting the link mechanism initially and this work is almost complete. When working and provenly practical, the LWG will be happy to make a minor CT update adding it to clause 4. Note also that encouraging tagging with a "source" tag is also useful in this regard, however it is only a best effort as not all contributors will and source tags may get change or get deleted over time. Level 3: End-users re-distributing a copy of the OSM database or a derivative database are required to maintain any third-party attribution information intact. Messy in the case of very small extracts and in source tags, but not impossible. However, I would not like to force future generations of OSMers to require this in perpetuity, (in reality about 135 years given the current age of many contributors). Consistent source tagging, and appending to source tags rather changing them, helps this on a best-effort but not guarenteed basis. Level 4: End-users have to acknowledge third-parties in maps they make. I am vehemently opposed to this for any form of highly granular data. Even if individual contributors are excluded, requiring a list of several hundred sources is not practical and will become worse when OSM data itself is just one of several sources used to make a map. Regretfully, imported CC-BY's "at least as prominent" for each source exacerbates this situation. For a longer but outdated discussion see "5. A look at third party Attribution", LWG minutes 12th Oct 2010: <http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_87d3bmhxgc>http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_87d3bmhxgc
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
