Mike Collinson wrote: > Thanks, David. Bother. Either it refers only to Royal Mail-tainted > Code-Point data as immediately above the text or the OS are pulling > a fast one by re-writing the OGL ... making it effectively their old > problematic license. Assuming the latter we'll need to lobby.
No, we won't. OS's OGLified licence remains compatible with the ODbL, because of the express ODC compatibility clause (which is mentioned in the OS blog posting). So the downstream attribution requirement may only be a problem in the future if OSMF chooses to move to a licence without it (assuming that OSMF considers that CT 4 gives it that right). But that isn't a problem now. Version 1.2.3 of the Contributor Terms state "You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our _current_ licence terms" (my emphasis). They also only require that you grant rights to OSMF "to the extent that you are able to do so", so the fact that you can't grant rights over and above those required by ODbL is not a problem. > [...] > "It incorporates the Open Government License for pubic sector information I sincerely hope it doesn't say that! cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5900022.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk