[Imports] Import of buildings heights in Montpellier, France

Andrea Musuruane musuruan at gmail.com
Wed Nov 1 21:50:31 UTC 2017


On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 7:41 PM, Tobias Knerr <osm at tobias-knerr.de> wrote:

> On 01.11.2017 18:56, Andrea Musuruane wrote:
> > What you says applies to every import not PD, CC0 or PDDL licensed, as
> > stated here:
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility
> In addition to those, there's also the possibility of an explicit
> permission for OSM, as I mentioned in my first mail. I hope someone with
> more legal knowledge than myself can properly answer Vincent's question
> about the wording of that permission.

Asking for an explicit permission is really a rocky road.

Most Public Administrations in Italy are happy to share their
(geographical) data as open data. They usually choose an attribution-only
license. That is either a CC-BY license or a IODL (Italian Open Data
License) license. I think they choose an attribution-only license because
they want to see their name on the derived works (and politicians want to
be appreciated because they have freed their data).

Asking for a waiver is usually difficult enough. Public servants will tell
that politicians have already chosen a license and their legal advisers
think it is compatible with the ODbL so there is no need for such a waiver.

This is at least what happened with Regione Piemonte whose data are CC-BY
2.5 licensed.

Other times we are more lucky and we get a waiver even if the Public
Administration doesn't really understand why we need one.

In most cases, an explicit permission, or a license change, requires a
Local Government Act. Therefore politicians will want to make another one
only if they are forced. They did it once - for the original license - so
in their opinion there is no need for amendments.

> But yes, this issue is not limited to ODbL.
> > I can't see why Vincent's proposed import is different from other
> > imports we already did in the past (ODbL, CC-BY or OGL licensed).
> There's nothing special about Vincent's proposed import from this legal
> point of view. In my opinion, we should indeed refrain from importing
> data under such licenses as a general rule.
> That such imports have been performed in the past is true. At least in
> my case, however, the reason why I didn't raise similar objections back
> then is simply that I didn't pay close enough attention.

I really disagree with you.

We spent years lobbing Public Administrations about freeing their data and
now they are really happy to share their data and *to share their data
especially with us*.

The fact they want to share their data with *us* is also an acknowledgement
of the good work we are doing with OpenStreetMap.

If we can't import their data (as in the Regione Piemonte example) we
partially fail. Public Administration are unhappy because they cannot
understand why we don't use their data. Mappers are unhappy because they
can't use very good data sources. Users are unhappy because we don't have
enough data (especially address data or building data).

IMHO if there will ever be a revision of the ODbL, it should make it
*easier* to import attribution-only licensed third party data.


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20171101/ab3391a0/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Imports mailing list