[OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
80n80n at gmail.com
Fri Sep 17 18:03:08 BST 2010
On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 5:03 PM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> On 09/17/2010 03:45 PM, David Groom wrote:
>> In what way are you suggesting OSMF would breach the CT's? I've
>> certainly never suggested they would do such a thing.
> You have said that CT 3 allows the data to be published without attribution
> in the future. I am saying that doing so would break CT 4.
> By agreeing to the CT's you "legally" agree to do certain things. One of
>> those is that data you add will not infringe any third parties rights.
>> Where data you are submitting is based on CC-BY-SA type data, one of
>> those "rights" is that there will be attribution on the data. However,
>> as the CT's allow in the future "any free and open licence" to be
>> chosen, then legally you would be in breach of the CT's by adding
>> CC-BY-SA data, because you cant guarantee the attribution requirement
>> which is required under CC-BY-SA.
> Oh I see. I'm talking about the Ordnance Survey's BY-compatible licence
> rather than BY-SA but attribution inheritance is the issue, yes.
> I thought you were saying that you think that it is OK to do add such
>> data, on the assumption that OSMF would remove data in the future.
> I'm saying that, assuming it's OK to add such data, the CTs don't say "and
> later an evil OSM(F) can strip attribution from such data". CT4 says that
> attribution is a condition for *OSM*. If OSM wished to move to a
> non-attribution licence then attribution-required data could be removed, but
> it could not stripped of its attribution.
There's no link from an ODbL published work to the OSMF attribution page, so
at best it's a rather indirect form of attribution. What's more Produced
Works have no requirement for attribution other than the statement
referenced in ODbL 4.3 which is not a proper form of copyright notice.
What's more that statement is not viral, the attribution chain is easily
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk