[OSM-legal-talk] Nearmap vs CTs: any progress?
ben.last at nearmap.com
Mon Nov 15 04:54:57 GMT 2010
>From the nearmap.com side, there have been a couple of emails since the
discussion with the LWG, but nothing in the last month. I've been reading
the minutes and check the redrafting of the Contributor Terms (
monitor any changes. Referring to that page:
- The section on Incompatibility with ODBL / Share-A-Like
a way forward that might help address one of the issues we raised; it
proposes that in the event of a future change to a licence incompatible with
the licence(s) under which data had been submitted to OSM, such data would
be deleted (that's my understanding of the proposal, not a quote).
- The section on the very wide range of paragraph
however, doesn't change the situation. Please note that we're not trying to
make a philosophical objection here; it's just a fact that if you have a
CC-BY-SA (or even ODbL) licence to some data, whether from nearmap.com or
anywhere else, you cannot grant a wider licence to that data to the OSMF, as
required by paragraph 2. A CC-BY-SA or ODbL licence doesn't grant you the
rights that you would need to do so. As others have observed, this isn't
specifically a nearmap.com issue, it's an issue for *any* dataset has
been or would be incorporated into OSM under a licence, unless that licence
does grant the necessary rights.
So as matters currently stand, the nearmap.com community licence doesn't
grant the necessary rights that would allow an OSM mapper to accept the
Contributor Terms for existing or future data derived from our PhotoMaps.
Because of various comments made online about this, I'd like to stress
again that we have not "withdrawn support" from OSM, nor have we "changed
our licence to make it incompatible". Our community licence covering
derived works was established as CC-BY-SA when we launched (this was in part
specifically to allow OSM contributions), and it still is CC-BY-SA. It's
the changes made to the Contributor Terms by the OSMF that have led to the
incompatibility. I believe we understand the motivations behind those
changes, but I also believe we're obliged to point out that they raise
significant issues affecting the use of our data; that's all I'm seeking to
do. As ever, it is for the OpenStreetMap community to determine what
changes should be made.
On 15 November 2010 11:57, Steve Bennett <stevagewp at gmail.com> wrote:
> So, it's been a few months now. Any signs of progress on CTs that
> would be compatible with data providers like NearMap?
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk