----- Original Message -----
From: "Francis Davey" <fjm...@gmail.com>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
<legal-t...@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2010 1:31 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
On 17 September 2010 13:22, David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net> wrote:
But your missing the point. The since the CT's allow the possibility in
the
future that data might be published without attribution, then its
impossible
to contribute data (and still be acting in accordance with the CT's)
which
absolutely requires that attribution.
To clarify: the CT's as the currently stand:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms
require (per clause 4) OSMF to attribute on request. There is no
mechanism for that term to be changed, so regardless of what licence
may be used, OSMF must still comply with clause 4 and hence attribute
on request.
True, but the is not point that CC-BY-SA data and, OS Opendata which is
licensed under a CC-BY-SA "like" licence, the attribution needs not to be
guaranteed to be on the wiki, but that requirement for attribution needs to
be tied in with the data.
CT's clause 3 allow the possibility that at some stage in the future some
unspecified "free and open license" may be used, since we don't know what
the attribution requirements (for use of the data) would be under that
circumstance, then surely adding CC-BY-SA data is incompatible with the
CT's.
David
It is correct that a contributor could not comply fully with the CT's
and at the same time contribute data from the Ordinance Survey under
the OS's existing licence. That is no different from data that is
currently available under (say) CC-BY-SA or many other licences. I
beleive (but don't know) that the LWG are working on new wording that
deals with contributing not one's own data, but data drawn from (or
still subject to licence under) one of the well known "open" licenses
that are available.
The reason a contributor could not do this is simply the breadth of
rights given to OSMF under clause 2. Few open licenses will give a
contributor *that* much and so the contributor cannot agree to
anything so wide. That is (I believe) a reason for the review of the
licence.
This is a separate consideration from the compatibility of the ODbL
with any particular open licence (such as the OS's). Compatibility
(for contributors) with the CT's and compatibility with the ODbL are
pretty much orthogonal questions.
--
Francis Davey
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
