From: "Paul Norman"
"If the import source is something other than PD this point should be discussed
in the required messages to the imports@ mailing list before importing. That
way the community can decide if they want it with the licensing issues. "
Thanks!
Hence the following is a sufficient but not a necessary condition to use a
database as an OSM data source:
"(the data provider) releases the following database in public domain".
Probably some potential data providers would refuse this but still agree to
contribute to OSM (and allow relicensing [1]).
Would the following wording (A) be the sufficient and necessary condition?
"A) (the data provider) authorises any person to insert the content of the
following database (or any part thereof), as well as derived works, into the
OpenStreetMap database, under the conditions of the OpenStreetMap Contributor
Terms 1.2.4".
What do you think? Of course this would need to be improved (and I'm not a
native speaker).
Is it OK to write the version (1.2.4)? What if the terms change before the data
are imported?
Optionally, would provision (B) be OK?
"B) Any person inserting these data must include the name of (the data
provider) in the value of the "attribution" key (potentially with the name of
other sources used) at the moment of insertion or edition of the data in the
OpenStreetMap database".
This would satisfy organisations wishing to get some attribution. It does not
prevent removing the name in the "attribution" key later (for example because
the data was modified so much that it keeps little or no link to the original
data). Even in case of removal of the name in the "attribution" key later, with
the current API and website the attribution will still be visible in the
feature history, and this may be enough for the data provider.
Hence with A) and B), organisations could contribute data while still retaining
some attribution and making sure re-use is fully permitted. It would be great
to have such guidelines without the need for the community to discuss this
every time on a case by case basis.
Thanks for your comments!
Cheers,
Mayeul
[Note 1] Data provider may accept relicensing in particular because (my
understanding is that) the OSMF cannot relicense under a licence that would
prohibit free re-use (the ToC link to http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ whose
item "3. Reuse" makes Share-Alike or similar provisions mandatory). Whereas
"public domain" is not Share-Alike.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
