[OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

[Simon Poole]

Grant

There's a lot of data out there that has licenses that at least 
superficially may seem to be compatible with the OSM license.

Using such data sources is very attractive to some mappers, 
for a large number of reasons, not the least that it's simply a lot 
less work than going out and mapping stuff yourself.

Asking a mapper community with a majority of  non-lawyer, 
non-native English speakers to determine if two licenses are 
compatible (one of which will always be quite complex) with 
some degree of certainty is just a joke. 

And as I pointed out previously, getting formal authorization 
tends to be so much work, that it doesn't even happen in cases 
where the proper contacts are there.

I know you've been doing work on the "Import Catalogue"
and I hope you realize that it at least for the regions where I 
have some knowledge it is missing a quite lot of stuff, in fact
it more like the tip of an iceberg.

Since there's nothing particularly special about where I live, 
I have to assume it that it's going to be similar elsewhere. 
Luckily most of it is tracing from orthophotos, but I just 
noticed it's missing a recent import of 30'000 public transport 
stops (don't panic, the license is "probably" ok (see above) 
and I'll ask the importers to add it to the list).

Simon
 

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Grant Slater" <openstreetmap at firefishy.com>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2010 12:43 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2


> On 7 December 2010 22:53, Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:
>>
>> Franics writes:
>>>
>>> What do you suggest? The only practical option I can see is for OSMF
>>> to supply a list of approved third party licenses that are
>>> "compatible" with OSMF and refuse anything not licensed under one of
>>> those.
>>
>> This or a list of approved sources as I have already suggested.
>> The current wording in the CTs 1.2 simply throws us back to the pre-CT 1.0
>> state (depending on the mapper to make a decision on licensing issues). The
>> LWG actually knows that this doesn't work, but obviously doesn't want to
>> actually do anything about it.
>>
>> See https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_86hf7fnqg8 "4. Data Imports"
>>
> 
> "Importer" in that context sits better than "mapper". The person who
> imports data needs to make a decision on licensing terms, this has
> always been the case.
> The import guidelines strongly advise:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines
> Imports like "BP service stations Australia" are a problem, because
> the importer did not state the license and the LWG on contacting the
> supplier of the data says that the data is only for personal use. (I
> am still following up this case.) This is a problem under CC-BY-SA or
> ANY future license.
> 
> Your remark of "LWG... doesn't want to actually do anything about it."
> doesn't ring true to the text or the subsequent work LWG has been
> doing.
> 
> Kind regards
> Grant
> LWG member.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>