> From: Matthew Buchanan [mailto:matthew.ian.bucha...@gmail.com] > Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:59 PM > To: OSM Talk-ca > Subject: [Talk-ca] Open Government Licence > > Is this good news for OSM?
I'll be doing a full analysis later, but I believe the license is currently incompatible with OSM because of a drafting error on the cities' part. It comes down to attribution. The Vancouver license sets out the attribution requirements as > Acknowledge the source of the Information by including any > attribution statement specified by the Information Provider(s) > and, where possible, provide a link to this licence. > If the Information Provider does not provide a specific > attribution statement, or if you are using Information from > several Information Providers and multiple attributions are > not practical for your product or application, you must use > the following attribution statement: > > Contains information licensed under the Open Government Licence - Vancouver. It also defines "Information Provider" as the "The City of Vancouver" OSM can only guarantee attribution in accordance with 4.2 of the ODbL. This would be okay with the attribution required for several "Information Providers" except that the only "Information Provider" is the The City of Vancouver, and as there is only one City of Vancouver, there is never a scenario where there are multiple Information Providers. _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
