On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Paul Norman wrote:
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.
Is this a drafting error on Vancouver's part or is the error in
the Open Government license text that all these governments are using as
their template? (http://data.gc.ca/eng/open-government-licence-canada ?)
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.
Wouldn't the multiple "Information Providers" kick is as soon as you
combined data from Vancouver with any other source such as the existing OSM
database?
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
_______________________________________________
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
