Peter Miller wrote: > I note that the OS data is CCBY not CCBYSA which may be relevant to > the issue, I don't know. I have also noted that the government > clearly wants the data to be used and is unlikely to sue, however the > Foundation have stated that they will remove all data that is > derived from CCBYSA (and CCBY?) !
As usual with licence debates this is rapidly descending into more-heat-than-light territory. There are two issues which people have identified with including data derived from OS OpenData within an ODbL-licensed OSM. Firstly, the proposed Contributor Terms (which are _not_ the ODbL, they are OSMF's own contractual Terms & Conditions) require that "You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder". Clearly Bob Mapper is not the copyright holder of OS data. OS is. OSMF may therefore need to enhance the Contributor Terms to permit Bob Mapper to add such data. I suggest this should be done by a list of "easements", i.e. permitted exceptions to the "you are the copyright holder" rule. This would also have the advantage that OSMF could review imports before they happen. For anyone who feels this is important, you should raise this directly with OSMF rather than relying on them to read every single interminable debate on every single mailing list. Secondly, some people (e.g. Frederik) have raised a concern that it might be possible to create Produced Works without the attribution that Ordnance Survey requires, by licensing the Produced Work as public domain - which would not require recipients of the Produced Work to reproduce any attribution. I think this is entirely mistaken. 4.3 in ODbL says "if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice... reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database". Note that this is "any Person that is exposed to" in perpetuity, not "any person who you distribute it to". If you give it to Bill and Bill gives it to Jim, Jim is still "exposed to" the work. Therefore distributing a Produced Work as public domain, with no attribution requirement, does _not_ fulfil your obligation to "include a notice... reasonably calculated to make any Person... aware". So you can't do it. The most permissive licence which may be used for a Produced Work is attribution-only (as it should be), and that fulfils the OS's attribution requirements. cheers Richard _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
