[OSM-legal-talk] ODBL and imports
I've been thinking about this for quite some time, but have not been able to come up with anything useful so please help me. I think we have a big problem with the choice of CT + ODBL, it is very unclear to people that ODBL data can not be uploaded to Openstreetmap. It's obvious that the data is licensed as ODbL, but the issue that all contributors must agree to CT is a bit hidden The first question is exactly what license should I ask people to license their data as, if I'm supposed to beable to use it in OSM? The second is if should be made clear that we do not accept ODBL licensed data. One example which seemed the most simple way to do it to me, but suggestions on how to do this easier is very appreciated: http://www.mapillary.com/osm.html http://www.mapillary.com/legal.html Have a nice weekend! -- /emj ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODBL and imports
The LWG might actually publish a formal guideline on the subject, but my informal 2c for now: - it is fairly clear that you -could- import 3rd party ODbL licensed data under the CT (naturally assuming every other box for an import has been ticked too). The CTs only require compatibility with the current OSM licence and that is a given (there are a few other details that need to be observed, but that is the big one). - it is just as clear that importing anything that may conflict with a future licence change runs the risk of being removed at such a date. Slightly opinionated comment: as one of the people that had to deal with numerous importers that choosed to ignore what was going on during the licence change: if there is a next time the position will be that you were forewarned and are getting exactly what you asked for. - which leads to the question -should- you import ODbL licenced data. Obviously the answer to that is highly subjective, my position is that I wouldn't, but others may differ. Simon Am 25.04.2014 14:00, schrieb Erik Johansson: I've been thinking about this for quite some time, but have not been able to come up with anything useful so please help me. I think we have a big problem with the choice of CT + ODBL, it is very unclear to people that ODBL data can not be uploaded to Openstreetmap. It's obvious that the data is licensed as ODbL, but the issue that all contributors must agree to CT is a bit hidden The first question is exactly what license should I ask people to license their data as, if I'm supposed to beable to use it in OSM? The second is if should be made clear that we do not accept ODBL licensed data. One example which seemed the most simple way to do it to me, but suggestions on how to do this easier is very appreciated: http://www.mapillary.com/osm.html http://www.mapillary.com/legal.html Have a nice weekend! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODBL and imports
On Fri, Apr 25, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Simon Poole si...@poole.ch wrote: - which leads to the question -should- you import ODbL licenced data. Obviously the answer to that is highly subjective, my position is that I wouldn't, but others may differ. So, you mean that the main objection to import ODBL data is a future licence change. But I remember some past messages here or elsewhere that the licence process is so heavy and requires so high acceptance that a licence change is almost impossible... (note that this argument would invalidate all types of third party licences and finally all imports). Pieren ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODBL and imports
Am 25.04.2014 16:17, schrieb Pieren: ... So, you mean that the main objection to import ODBL data is a future licence change. But I remember some past messages here or elsewhere that the licence process is so heavy and requires so high acceptance that a licence change is almost impossible... (note that this argument would invalidate all types of third party licences and finally all imports). Naturally any import that is not CC0 licenced or is PD has the potential to cause problems if and when a further licence change is considered. But this is a continuum from would cause a lot of issues to more or less OK. For example changing to a licence that does not support and require attribution would essentially cause a massacre and is unlikely to ever be seriously considered. But as a consequence I personally would consider CC by and other licences that essentially only require some kind of attribution as not tying our hands more than they already are and insofar as unproblematic. As already said, this is only my personal opinion. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODBL and imports
Am 25.04.2014 14:00, schrieb Erik Johansson: http://www.mapillary.com/osm.html I probably should have added that I see no problem at all with the terms Mapillary specifies, since for contributions to OSM it only specifies that it should happen under the terms of the CTs. IMHO naturally. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
