On 7 June 2010 13:08, Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> wrote: > Frederik Ramm <frede...@...> writes: > >>Is anybody sure that the OS's attribution requirements are adequately >>addressed by current practice, and when moving to ODbL later? >> >>Under ODbL it will be possible to use non-substantial amounts of data >>from OSM without any attribution (this is not disputed), and furthermore >>(this is disputed and the following is only the opinion of myself plus >>at least one member of the licensing working group) it will be possible >>to create a produced work from OSM data and license that under a license >>that does not require attribution, so attribution can become lost "down >>the line". > > I don't think this matters; if someone else infringes the attribution > requirement isn't that between them and OS? We have done our part.
I think this matters very much. If OSM is providing data under ODbL, it's asserting that the data can be used under ODbL without any further restrictions / requirements. You couldn't take a CC-By-SA work, combine it with some of your own stuff, and then offer at formally as CC-SA with an expectation that users would spot the "By" bit in some of your source data and voluntarily add the appropriate attribution. In the same way, we couldn't take OS OpenData and then offer our derived work under ODbL which has weaker attribution requirements in some circumstances. It's not a question of whether we (or any of our downstream users) might get sued by OS, it's a question of whether we can legally offer stuff that's derived from OS OpenData under ODbL. Moreover, it appears that the new contributor terms require contributors (or their data sources) to grant OSMF some sort of licence to enable OSM to be more easliy relicenced under a similar share-alike licence at a future date. Even if there's a way round the ODbL compatibility issue (maybe by OS agreeing to license their data under ODbL), I can't see OS agreeing to cede these additional rights to OSMF. Therefore as things stand at the moment with the license change plans, I think we'd need to remove anything that's been derived from OS OpenData products. Before we get too encumbered with OS OpenData, we *really* need a legal expert from OSMF and/or OpenDataCommons to look in to these issues, and let us know where we stand. Useful as they might be, maybe OSMF needs to rethink the additional grant of rights to OSMF by contributors. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
