On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:48, Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote:
> I agree that neither side is likely change their position. > > Could we propose (to OSMF) new wording for an updated waiver that makes it > clearer, the attribution half doesn't seem like a problem, its the second > half which mentions ODbL even though the cover letter block explains it > they aren't signing that page. When we were communicating with DNRM early > last year they do appear to think that they need to relicense under the > ODbL, and I can now sort of see how the waiver could be read that way. > I think OSMF's blog post, the cover letter and the waiver form are very clear. What changes would you propose? I got the impression as well, especially with the reply "The department will not provide the data under an ODbl licence." I did try to explain that they don't need to relicense the data under ODbL and that we are just asking for one exception to CC BY in order to be compatible with ODbL. > Waiver: > > [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license as to > OpenStreetMap and its > > users with the understanding that the Open Database License 1.0 requires > open access > > or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap > > CCBY4 Clause: > > *No downstream restrictions*. You may not offer or impose any > additional or different > > terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures > to, the > > Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights > by any recipient > > of the Licensed Material. > That's it, as I understand it ODbL says you can provide data with these technical restrictions so long as a parallel version is made available without the technical restrictions. CC BY says you can't have any technical restrictions, even if you make a parallel version without the technical restrictions. >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
