[OSM-legal-talk] A very brief brief for our new licence
peter.miller at itoworld.com
Sun Sep 28 10:14:00 BST 2008
> -----Original Message-----
> From: legal-talk-bounces at openstreetmap.org [mailto:legal-talk-
> bounces at openstreetmap.org] On Behalf Of Frederik Ramm
> Sent: 28 September 2008 09:04
> To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
> Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] A very brief brief for our new
> > 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
> > licence in 4.2, 'This DOCUMENT TYPE contains information from DATABASE
> > however a Derivative or Collective database may be called something else
> > 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.
One thing that is working really badly is the lack of responsiveness when we
need real legal opinion, possibly this is partly why the list is not very
active at present.
I agree the cascading thing is critical to a viral licence and we need a
formal answer to this question from the OSMF and the other questions we have
raised in this thread.
Can I suggest that we now put this discussion on hold until we get some
feedback and comment from the OSMF with regard to the issues we have
identified in this thread?
> > Is this the main area of concern with my 'brief brief', if so we are
> > 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.
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
More information about the legal-talk