[OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM

[Peter Miller]

I have updated the wiki 'brief' to reflect a number of issues raised in the
past few days.

1) I have removed all references to 'public' in the brief and now ensure
that Derived Database are distributed at least as widely as the end-user
experience itself and that others are free to distribute it more widely.

2) I have added a clause to clarify that automatically processing the
dataset into a new form not in itself constitute the creation of a derived
DB and that the original DB can be used if preferred.

3) I have added clarification that the derived DB should be provided in a
suitable form and by a suitable means to allow it to be use by a 'competent
person'. I hope this captures the issues about having any derived DB usable
without unduly restricting access to the contents by the form, structure of
the data or means while available tying us into any current technology.

4) I have added a clause about providing a differential dataset together
with access details for the main dataset.

The licence page is available here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Open_Data_License

Btw, can someone provide a link for a primer to the requirements for
'DSFG-compliance'



Thanks,



Peter

> -----Original Message-----
> From: legal-talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-
> bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Richard Fairhurst
> Sent: 11 October 2008 00:18
> To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Paid services from OSM
> 
> Simon Ward wrote:
> 
> > It shouldn't be about specifically contributing back to OSM.  Ivan has
> > already pointed out this fails the desert island and dissident tests
> > used as rules of thumb for the Debian Free Software Guidelines.
> 
> Could I please ask that you wait for the current licence to be
> published - and, if necessary, lobby for it to be so - before
> complaining that it fails DFSG, or in fact any of the other points
> under discussion.
> 
> One of my objectives when I was working with Jordan, and other OSMF
> members, on the licence was that it would be DSFG-compliant. Now we
> may well have failed but at the moment this whole discussion is
> bonkers hypothetical - people are levelling accusations at a licence
> that they haven't even seen.
> 
> I didn't submit myself for re-election to OSMF this year, so I can't
> do what I'd like to and just post the licence right here, right now.
> I have suggested that it be published and eagerly await OSMF doing
> so. Maybe others would like to suggest the same. However - and with
> the proviso there may be a host of little niggles of comparatively
> little import - I do think it's a seriously good, well-considered
> licence.
> 
> I am trying to restrain myself from replying to any of the other 9876
> messages in this thread because It Has All Been Said Before.
> 
> cheers
> Richard
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk