[OSM-legal-talk] A very brief brief for our new licence

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Sun Sep 28 09:03:51 BST 2008


> However, I also don't understand how OSM can always insist on being
> attributed as outlined on the wiki 'ODL-Database expressly requires that
> credit is only given to the database, i.e. OpenStreetMap (4.2/4.3'. Sure, if
> the main OSM DB is used then that is the effect of the example notice in the
> licence in 4.2, 'This DOCUMENT TYPE contains information from DATABASE NAME'
> however a Derivative or Collective database may be called something else and
> therefore OSM will not be attributed.

For the current license, people seem to assume that attribution is 
cascading, i.e. you have to mention where you got the data from, and 
where they got their data from, and so on - cf. my question a few weeks 
ago on this list.

> Is this the main area of concern with my 'brief brief', if so we are doing
> very well :) or are there any others that we should consider?

Rest seemed ok for me but then again I didn't see much participation on 
this list in the past months so maybe everybody's out mapping.


More information about the legal-talk mailing list