[Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms

[Michael Collinson]

On 17/06/2011 14:50, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
> On 16 June 2011 17:50, Michael Collinson<mike at ayeltd.biz>  wrote:
>    
>> Here is as much information as I can give. It is not conclusive so I would
>> summarise by saying that I *personally* (great emphasis!) have some
>> contributions derived from OS StreetView data and have accepted the new
>> terms without qualms. I explain my reasons below and what I intend to do. I
>> hope they help you make up your own mind either way if you are in a similar
>> situation.
>>      
> Thank you for this, but I believe it only addresses half of the issue,
> namely whether OS OpenData can be distributed under ODbL. The other
> half is whether OS OpenData is compatible with the OSM Contributor
> Terms.
>    
Hi Robert,

Summary:

You only need to consider compatibility with ODbL. If OS OpenData is 
compatible with ODbL, then it is compatible with the OSM Contributor Terms.

[Aside: The future is the future and unknown. An import or derivation 
from a third-party license restricted resource may be incompatible in 
the future and have to be removed, or it may not ... that is something 
that the local community, GB mappers, should think about collectively 
but it is not something for the LWG to control.]

Detailed answer:

This is a general question about imported/derived data where the 
third-party wishes to exert some restriction and not OS OpenData-specific.

The LWG is very keen not to trap future mapping generations into a 
specific license whose effective span is well over 100 years. As a 
contributor you do not know what a future license will be or indeed if 
it will change at all. Nor does the LWG and nor does the third-party 
licensor, (Nearmap in Australia raised this issue). A future license may 
clash with the third-party license, it may not. The third-party license 
may follow a general trend towards being less restrictive, it may not.  
We therefore re-wrote the whole of clause 1 to address it. I highlight 
this specific sentence:

"If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You 
know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those 
Contents under our current licence terms ..."

The key word is "current".  Pedantically, this means CC-BY-SA right now, 
but the LWG hopes that you will also consider ODbL.

The LWG would like to insert some clear wording into clause 2 like, "to 
the extent to which you are able", but that unfortunately causes some 
very unfortunate side-effects that have been discussed on the legal-talk 
list. We'll certainly continue considering it for a future release, but 
it is not easy.

In other words, for the LWG,  if data is compatible with *current* 
license terms, then there is no problem contributing it and accepting 
the contributor terms.

Hope that helps,
Mike