On 17/06/2011 14:50, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
On 16 June 2011 17:50, Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz wrote:
Here is as much information as I can give. It is not conclusive so I would
summarise by saying that I *personally* (great emphasis!) have some
contributions derived from OS StreetView data and have accepted the new
terms without qualms. I explain my reasons below and what I intend to do. I
hope they help you make up your own mind either way if you are in a similar
situation.
Thank you for this, but I believe it only addresses half of the issue,
namely whether OS OpenData can be distributed under ODbL. The other
half is whether OS OpenData is compatible with the OSM Contributor
Terms.
Hi Robert,
Summary:
You only need to consider compatibility with ODbL. If OS OpenData is
compatible with ODbL, then it is compatible with the OSM Contributor Terms.
[Aside: The future is the future and unknown. An import or derivation
from a third-party license restricted resource may be incompatible in
the future and have to be removed, or it may not ... that is something
that the local community, GB mappers, should think about collectively
but it is not something for the LWG to control.]
Detailed answer:
This is a general question about imported/derived data where the
third-party wishes to exert some restriction and not OS OpenData-specific.
The LWG is very keen not to trap future mapping generations into a
specific license whose effective span is well over 100 years. As a
contributor you do not know what a future license will be or indeed if
it will change at all. Nor does the LWG and nor does the third-party
licensor, (Nearmap in Australia raised this issue). A future license may
clash with the third-party license, it may not. The third-party license
may follow a general trend towards being less restrictive, it may not.
We therefore re-wrote the whole of clause 1 to address it. I highlight
this specific sentence:
If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You
know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those
Contents under our current licence terms ...
The key word is current. Pedantically, this means CC-BY-SA right now,
but the LWG hopes that you will also consider ODbL.
The LWG would like to insert some clear wording into clause 2 like, to
the extent to which you are able, but that unfortunately causes some
very unfortunate side-effects that have been discussed on the legal-talk
list. We'll certainly continue considering it for a future release, but
it is not easy.
In other words, for the LWG, if data is compatible with *current*
license terms, then there is no problem contributing it and accepting
the contributor terms.
Hope that helps,
Mike
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
