Thanks Simon very helpful. Sorry HDX is Humanitarian Data Exchange, is basically a clearinghouse of datasets that organizations push up and maintain. There is lots of open geo data available through the site, some of which would be appropriate for OSM if they put an appropriate license on it. Many of the datasets are for developing or highly at risk countries. On Mar 20, 2016 10:35 AM, "Simon Poole" <si...@poole.ch> wrote:
> > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission#Letter_Template3 > would seem to be the most complete version of "how we really would like you > to release data to us". > > It is not really a surprise that OSM requires a special case, it is simply > due to OSM actually being a special case and essentially being the only > project that digests open data and produces such with the downstream end > user very often multiple tiers away. Most other data consumers (the goog > and so on) typically have complete. or at least tight. control over the end > product and wont have issues with complicated attribution requirements and > other restrictive terms. > > Outside of specific terms for OSM, currently, IMHO, organisations wanting > to release data on open licence terms don't really have many good options. > They will typically gyrate to CC by licences even though 2.0 and 3.0 don't > really work for data (which is likely why commercial users are such a fan > of them) and 4.0 is a total rewrite which raises some questions with > respect to use as a data licence that remain unanswered. > > If it was up to me I would suggest > http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ , however it is not clear if > the authors are still interested at all in any of the O* licences. > > Simon > > PS: what is HDX, besides being CHJ (cool humanitarian jargon)? > > Am 19.03.2016 um 18:52 schrieb Dale Kunce: > > I'm very curious about the cc-by compatibility. The Red Cross is doing a > very large mapping project in West Africa, ground truthing a lot of the > data created by remote mappers during ebola. As part of the project we want > to release the data both in OSM and in a more complete form (not all data > gathered is appropriate for osm) on HDX. Our original thinking was to > double license the data, Cc-by 4.0 for HDX with an explicit license for > OSM. > > What is the best route for organizations to do something like this. From > this thread I can see the need for a checklist or at the very minimum a > wiki page with sample language. Forgive me if this already exist I haven't > found anything online yet. > > Dale > On Mar 18, 2016 9:58 PM, "Simon Poole" <si...@poole.ch> wrote: > >> Diane >> >> Any comment from CC on the -other- issues that have been raised wrt CC by >> 4.0 and ODbL compatibility and in general with the way it works for >> databases? >> >> Simon >> >> Am 18.03.2016 um 17:19 schrieb Diane Peters: >> >> Just to be clear on the attribution removal requirement in CC's licenses, >> Erik asserted: >> >> I wish people would stop releasing data with CC-by; "you have to >> attribute us, but you have to remove that attribution when ever we >> want you too" which is not present in ODbL so.... >> >> There is no such absolute obligation. In 4.0, the removal requirement >> provides: "If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the >> information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) >> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#s3a1A> to the >> extent reasonably practicable." (Sec. 3a3 >> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode>). And in 3.0, >> it's "to the extent practicable", which from a CC perspective is >> functionally the equivalent (Sec. 4a >> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode>). >> >> Diane >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Tom Lee <t...@mapbox.com> wrote: >> >>> Tobias, the best option for ensuring the data is usable by OSM is an >>> explicit statement of permission for the OpenStreetMap project to >>> incorporate and use the data under the project's terms. This is generally >>> considered preferable to a dataset that is ODbL-licensed without such a >>> statement. >>> >>> However, I would encourage you to consider non-OSM users as well when >>> choosing the license. ODbL is not widely used outside of OSM. A license >>> like CC-BY 4.0 is more widely used and actively maintained. Choosing it >>> would ensure compatibility with a large number of non-OSM datasets. And if >>> paired with a permission statement like what's described above, OSM could >>> still use the data without any license compatibility worries. >>> >>> Of course, if you can do without attribution, you might consider >>> something even more simple that disclaims liability but imposes no other >>> terms. If that's an option let me know and I can turn up some examples. >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Erik Johansson <erjo...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Tobias Wendorff >>>> <tobias.wendo...@tu-dortmund.de> wrote: >>>> > Dear list, >>>> > >>>> > could you please recommend me licenses for releasing data to ODbL? >>>> > From my point of view, compatible licenses are CC-license without >>>> > "SA" and "BY" and (only if possible) CC0 and PD or finally special >>>> > license, like the following one: >>>> > >>>> > Some crporations like "Deutsche Bahn" (the biggest rail corporation >>>> > in Germany) has released their data under CC BY 4.0 with a special >>>> text >>>> > for OpenStreetMap (roughly translated): >>>> > >>>> > "If the data of Deutsche Bahn is part of the OpenStreetMap database >>>> work, >>>> > a reference to the Deutsche Bahn AG in the list of contributors is >>>> enough. >>>> > Crediting DB at each use of the data by a licensee of the mentioned >>>> database >>>> > work is no longer necessary then. Indirect credits (with reference to >>>> the >>>> > publisher of this databse work, which refers to the DB) is >>>> sufficient." >>>> > >>>> > Actually, that's a kind of dual-licensing with a special license for >>>> OSM. >>>> > From my understanding, releasing data ODbL would be the worst thing, >>>> > since the "BY" attribution of the data donator isn't compatible, is >>>> it? >>>> >>>> >>>> I've choosen not to start on a couple of imports because of the CC-by >>>> issue, I've gotten ok from the owners but they want to be included on >>>> http://osm.org/contributors . Deutsche Bahn seems to be much more >>>> free, I interpret it as source=Deutsche Bahn seems to be enough. >>>> >>>> >>>> I wish people would stop releasing data with CC-by; "you have to >>>> attribute us, but you have to remove that attribution when ever we >>>> want you too" which is not present in ODbL so.... >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> /emj >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> legal-talk mailing list >>>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> legal-talk mailing list >>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >>> >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> legal-talk mailing >> listlegal-talk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> legal-talk mailing list >> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing > listlegal-talk@openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
