Mike, I think we should come to a clearer recommendation, specifically with regards to share-alike data.
The highly infectuous character of share alike licenses severely restricts OSM's leeway of adjusting its license and we shouldn't paint ourselves into a corner this way. Here are the simple rules I do recommend currently when talking to people and that I would love OSM to adopt officially. Contribute only data that is: - Yours - Is public domain or merely requires attribution - You have an explicit permission from owner for contribution to OSM for BTW, I actually think there are only very few potential datasets that are in question here. I have doubts whether ODbL is actually compatible given OSMF's option to change the license to another open license in the future, and CC-BY-SA is clearly not compatible as it does not distinguish between derived and produced works. On Sep 20, 2012, at 11:26 AM, Michael Collinson <m...@ayeltd.biz> wrote: > On 20/09/2012 07:32, Mike Dupont wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> I have a question about imports and the ODBl, >> >> I see that some sources have decided to dual license the data >> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue >> >> But how can some third parties data be compatible when the CT says it >> can change any time, surly they might be compatible with the current >> instance of the license, but how can they be compatible with future >> versions of the license when they are no known? >> >> How can a contributor import any data and keep the data open to >> license change? How can you keep any imports at all from people who >> have not agreed to the CT directly? >> >> thanks >> mike >> > This one has been covered pretty exhaustively previously. To recap for all > interested: > > () The CTs where written carefully to say, "If you contribute Contents, 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." > "current license terms", so ODbL 1.0. > > () The future is the future, so cannot be known. > > () Should the license terms change in the future, there is a possibility that > imported data may become incompatible. Therefore the original licensor needs > be contacted for approval. Given the general trend to more open data, after > what we are all about, that approval may well be given. > > () Note also that, by design, a duty to provide first level attribution is > placed on the OSMF. This survives any potential license change and is general > the most important concern of government organisations. > > () The is always the possibility that data may need to be removed and that is > one of the minuses of imports. That is why it is important to always > understand third-party licenses and to get general consent of any potentially > affected, usually national or regional level, OSM mapping community before > importing. There is a healthy debate indirectly about this going on in the > general talk list. > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Alex Barth http://twitter.com/lxbarth tel (+1) 202 250 3633 _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
