On 22 December 2015 at 03:48, Tom Lee <t...@mapbox.com> wrote: > Point 1 is simple agreement. > > Point 2 also seems fine (obviously it's impossible to anticipate every > possible future for OSM, but an attribution-free one seems about as unlikely > as any). > > Point 3 is the least appealing, but I would personally feel comfortable > proceeding under the assumption that "it can be clearly identified as LPI > data" will be a rare occurrence. It is already the case, after all, that OSM > contains data that cannot be legally used in certain places and/or > configurations. One example is reverse engineering data from OSM that > violates a national post's exclusive franchise could be a problem for a user > -- clearly it isn't OSM's place to worry about this, but the dynamic is > real. Similarly, Japan's MLIT (whose data has already been imported) carries > not only attribution requirements but, if memory services, prohibitions on > misrepresenting the data's source. Having the data pass into and out of OSM > would not free users from this obligation; in practice it's not a problem.
That's thoughts also. Good to know about those other examples too! > The key thing here is that OSM *itself* would clearly be in compliance with > LPI's terms. I think that's the bar that has to be -- and has been -- > cleared. Great. People have started using this data and imagery now in OSM. This permission from LPI is going to help in talks with other agencies here who license CC-BY. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
