<html><head></head><body>Naturally an imagery provides terms of use can have terms that are incompatible with use in OSM. But many of the terms are completely OK, for example the original bing permission which restricted the use to adding data to OSM. Or more common, attribution requirements, as long as they can be fulfilled with our central attribution.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">Am 3. Oktober 2019 16:09:30 MESZ schrieb Florian Lohoff <f@zz.de>:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k9mail">On Wed, Oct 02, 2019 at 10:34:38PM +0200, Simon Poole wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;"><br>On 02.10.2019 08:01, Florian Lohoff wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;"> ...<br> Additional licensing terms from imagery/DOP providers or imports would<br> be incompatible with ODbL from my understanding and would anyway be not<br> allowed to be included in OSM.<br><br></blockquote>The above is incorrect.<br></blockquote><br>So why is the German additional license of "Naming the origin"<br>(Deutschland Namensnennung yadda yadda) incompatible with the ODbL?<br><br>I dont think anything which adds the need for additional licensing terms<br>to the produced work will be incompatible with the ODbL.<br><br>Flo</pre></blockquote></div><br>-- <br>Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Mobiltelefon mit Kaiten Mail gesendet.</body></html>