On 2018-03-07 09:08 PM, Steve Singer wrote: > > It is my understanding that the act of substitution is enough of a > change to require the LWG to need to look at it.
That's correct, Steve. I clarified the Ottawa import page a little: > The OSMF Licensing Working Group determined in their meeting on > 2017-03-02 that data under the Ottawa Open Data, Licence Version 2.0 > (Ottawa ODL 2.0) can be included in the OpenStreetMap dataset and > distributed on ODbL 1.0 terms. Quoting from the draft minutes (draft > link may not be generally readable): > >> The LWG has determined [(1)] that the attribution requirements of the >> Ottawa ODL 2.0 can be met by adding the required text to the wiki >> contributor page and corresponding changeset source attribute values, >> and that there is no downstream attribution requirement, [(2)] that >> we are not using "Personal Information" as defined in the licence and >> referenced legislation, and that so licensed material can be included >> in the OpenStreetMap dataset and distributed on ODbL 1.0 terms. — >> OSMF LWG draft minutes, 2017-03-02 > > Note: The LWG's acceptance of the Ottawa ODL 2.0 or the Canada Open > Data Licence 2.0 does not mean that near-identical licences are also > acceptable for OSM import. The draft minute goes on to say: > >> In the past the local variants of the OGL Canada have varied widely >> and have in some cases included additional terms that have made them >> incompatible with the ODbL and in some instances non-open. For this >> reason we are not making a blanket statement on other such localised >> versions of the OGL at this point in time and will continue to review >> them on a case by case base. > > For example, if the fictional City of Rotonto took the exact text of > the Ottawa ODL 2.0 and merely replaced instances of “Ottawa” with > “Rotonto”, the above minute indicates that the Rotonto ODL would > still need LWG approval. I made a request to the LWG about this time last year about the Toronto and Ontario licences, and they're still working on them. There is another way around the issue: publish as CC-BY 4.0 (as some Quebec municipalities have done) and supply OSM with one of these waivers: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates cheers, Stewart _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
