Hi all, I've been trying to convince the state government of Victoria (southeast Australia) to allow their VicMap raw data to be imported into OSM. It's currently CC-BY, and they've told me they're happy in principle for it to be used this way, but they're uncomfortable making the recommended statement "DELWP has no objections to geodata derived in part from Vicmap, either traced from Vicmap map products, or directly from spatial extracts, being incorporated into the OpenStreetMap project geodata database and released under a free and open license".
Specifically, they don't think ODbL is as "free and open" as CC-BY, and they don't particularly want to make a one-off statement for OSM. >The only other requirement is not to apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits. If the ODbL is more restrictive than our CC by Attribution this presents a problem for OSM, not for us. My initial response is that we wouldn't want OSM to apply a more restrictive license than ours, and in respect of the statement Steve wants us to provide, DELWP doesn't want to get into creating one-off variations for every potential user with a preference - Google, HERE, etc. ... >We believe the CC by Attribution appropriate to sufficiently and equitably provide our data to all/anyone, and if Steve is concerned he should take it up with OSM. I'll refer it to Legal (not ours, DataVic's) if he wants to pursue it further. It's all getting quite subtle and possibly out of my depth. I'm not sure if the concern is a misunderstanding about the implications of dual licensing, a philosophical objection to "free" licences that impose share-alike restrictions like ODbL, or something different. I wonder if there are any expert licence negotiators here who might be able to get involved in the discussion. Thanks very much, Steve
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
