[OSM-legal-talk] Question on derived datasets - old license and proposed license...

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

El Jueves, 9 de Octubre de 2008, Sunburned Surveyor escribió:
> I know that I would have to contribute my corrections and improvements
> to the street data back to OSM.

With the current wording of the proposed ODbL, yes. But my point of view is 
that the license should comply with DFSG. In other words, I expect you to 
contribute your corrections and data *only* to the people you distribute the 
maps to.

With the current CC-by-sa, you don't have to contribute back to OSM - you have 
to give the data to the people you're distributing the data to.

> But under the current license, do I have to distribute the tax assessor 
> polygons under the OSM license? 

Under CC-by-sa, yes. But only to your client!

At your discretion, you might want to upload everything to OSM. And your 
client will have the right to upload everything to OSM, if he wants to.

> What if this takes place under the proposed OSM license? Does it make 
> a difference?

Right now, the wording of the ODbL includes the word "public" a few more times 
than I think it's neccesary, so it works differently (i.e. I think it doesn't 
pass the DFSG "dissident test").

I cannot speak for everyone, but I do think that the general idea is to make 
the ODbL work like a copyleft license (i.e. you're required to distribute 
the "source" data only to the people you distribute the maps to). You'll have 
to wait for the final, revised version to be sure.



Cheers,
-- 
----------------------------------
Iván Sánchez Ortega <ivan at sanchezortega.es>

Now listening to: Jakatta - Visions (2002) - [9] Ride the Storm (5:31) 
(0.000000%)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20081009/6f9aa0d7/attachment.pgp>