[OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
reviews at pacific-rim.net
Fri Sep 17 14:35:30 BST 2010
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Francis Davey" <fjmd1a at gmail.com>
> To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
> <legal-talk at 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 <reviews at pacific-rim.net> wrote:
>> But your missing the point. The since the CT's allow the possibility in
>> future that data might be published without attribution, then its
>> to contribute data (and still be acting in accordance with the CT's)
>> absolutely requires that attribution.
> To clarify: the CT's as the currently stand:
> 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
> 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
> 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-talk at openstreetmap.org
More information about the legal-talk