Richard wrote: > For those who are similarly humourously challenged may I point out that I > have checked and no, the OS > OpenData licence does not refer to pubic sector information. [...]
Oops! It may read as a sense of humour failure, but it was actually a literacy failure. Maybe, therefore, take my "reading" of ODBL, OGL or anything else, with a pinch of salt, but here goes... > No, it doesn't. Firstly, the only additional requirement is a downstream > attribution requirement, which is > already present in the ODC attribution licences. Secondly, the OS blog > posting expressly mentioned > becoming "fully interoperable" with ODC as a change from the previous > licence. If we assume that the reading of ODBL in the LWG minutes is correct, then ODBL would not require attribution of OSM's sources in produced works (e.g., maps), rather only attribution of the OSM database. https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_87d3bmhxgc (see 5.c) It seems to me, the OS's added downstream attribution requirement says that if person A creates a derived work, then person B's work derives from person A's work, and person C's work derives from person B's work, then person B's licence must still require person C to attribute the OS if they publish. Now imagine this: 1. The OS has released OS Streetview under the OGL, modified with the downstream attribution requirement. 2. Person A traces from OS Streetview and adds to OSM database, released under ODBL (with its less stringent attribution requirements for produced works). 3. Person B creates a produced work (map) from OSM. 4. Person C creates a work based on person B's work. By the time we get to person C, the chain is completely broken (person B does not have to include the requirement in their licence that person C attributes the OS). This may not be a bad thing, but seems to contradict the additional licence term the OS had added. Now, I realise that the OGL specifically states it is compatible with ODC attribution licences, but that surely means the OS licence has two contradictory terms. Logically only one of them can apply in the situation above. Not sure why we can assume that the term specifically added by the OS is the one that does not apply. Or am I missing something? (Probably.) I do take heart from the content of the blog post, but I think removing the contradiction in the licence may be a sensible thing to request. David -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5902118.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
