More specifically, I got advice from le...@osmfoundation.org stating that the licence was more restrictive than the ODbL, and thus could not be used as is.
I am quite unsure if I should cite the email I received from them, but I will take the risk for the sake of the current discussion. I have been told, about the licence from Montréal, that "the attribution requirements itself (Point 4) are more restrictive than those from ODbL. You should there approach the data owners and seek the permission." As I do not know exactly what is more restrictive in the licence than the ODbL, I am left to interpretation. That is why I am asking for help here. My best interpretation of the problem concerns points 4.2 and 4.3 (roughly translated here: see the original at http://donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca/licence/licence-texte-complet/ ) : Point 4.2 - - - - - - - 4.2: If a Value Added Product contains Data [from the city], then you must include the following statement on this Product : This product contains data provided "as is" under license under the terms of the current agreement. The granting of this license does not mean an approbation of the product by the City of Montréal. The problem I see with this point is the definition of a Valud Added Product: 1.4: "Value Added Product" means any product, system, device, hardware or software made by you or for you in the exercise of your rights under the terms of the present agreement. My understanding is that the tiles generated by OpenStreetMap falls into this "Value Added Product" definition, and that to respect the license, the statement would have to be printed on the map. I am misreading the license? Also, there is point 4.3. Point 4.3 - - - - - - - 4.3 The following elements are forbidden from reproduction […] on any place: 4.3.1 [any official city symbol] 4.3.2 [any statement that would leave to interpretation that you have an exclusive distribution deal over the data or that you have had access to confidential data] Can this be respected through ODbL? Thanks, Guillaume Pratte Le 2013-06-06 à 02:54, Jo <winfi...@gmail.com> a écrit : > The way I read that 4th clause, it should be enough to add > > Contient des données reproduites, modifiées, traduites ou distribuées « > telles quelles » avec la permission de la Ville de Montréal. > > Ce produit contient des données accordées sous licence « telles quelles » aux > termes de l’accord de licence d’utilisation des données de la Ville de > Montréal. L’octroi de la licence ne constitue pas une approbation du produit > par la Ville de Montréal. > > > Openstreetmap contains data integrated with other data with permission from > the city of Montreal. This agreement does not mean Openstreetmap is endorsed > by the city of Montreal. > > Maybe you can come up with a better translation. I redacted it to the > essence. (Fortunately I didn't end up with 'mostly harmless') > > to this page: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors > > Once you add that, send them a message asking whether this is enough for them > in terms of attribution and if not, what would need to be changed. If it's > not enough and they need to change the license before reuse in Openstreetmap > becomes acceptable, you can remove it once again. Or you can send them a > message asking how to phrase it before adding it to the wiki. > > What we do with data from Brussels is to add ref:UrbIS to each object, which > will make it easier to compare future versions, keep them up to date and > detect vandalism or editor's mistakes. We also add source=UrbIS as a tag on > the changeset, but all that is for internal use. The text on > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors is the source reference for > the public. > > Jo > > 2013/6/6 Guillaume Pratte <guilla...@guillaumepratte.net> > Hello, > > The Ville de Montréal has some interesting data available under their own > licence: > > http://donnees.ville.montreal.qc.ca/licence/licence-texte-complet/ > > However clause 4 of the licence (attribution) is more restrictive than the > terms of the ODbL, and thus the data cannot be used in OSM. > > Since this licence can and will change in the future (the city want to make > it evolve to be on pair with other big North American cities), we would need > a more permanent and explicit authorization from the city to use its data > within OSM. > > Surely this situation is not the first of its kind to happen regarding OSM. > Are there examples of how this was handled with other data sources? > > What would be the general guidelines to suggest to the city for such a legal > document to authorize contributions of its data to OSM? > > Should the city somehow allow explicitly the relicensing of its data under > the ODbL for the OpenSteetMap project? > > Thanks, > > Guillaume Pratte > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
