davespod wrote: > 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.
I'm restating what I said in http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-January/005650.html , but basically, it is up to OSM to say how we require OSM to be attributed (to define "DATABASE NAME" in 4.3a). For a Derivative Database of OSM user-contributed data and a significant amount of OS OpenData, it's entirely reasonable for that attribution to mention Ordnance Survey, as required by their licence. This is no change from what we already do, and require of others, at http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright . cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5906113.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
