[OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources

[David Groom]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: <pecisk at gmail.com>
To: <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2010 10:01 AM
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources


>
> Hi everyone!
>
> To clarify my criticism/confusion with CT:
>
> 1) I'm not against ODbL. It is nice idea and I wholeheartedly support it;
> 2) I'm not against general idea of CT, I understand why it is needed;
>
> My confusion and problem lies within fact, that while I can accept CT
> if I add only my own data to OSM, I can't to do that due of
> third-party sources because some of them requires attribution and
> share alike. While ODbL is good enough for both of these things
> (theoretically), then CT blocks, because it says that nature of the
> license of imported data can change. As I'm not author of those data,
> I don't have permission to change nature of the license.
>
> About three or four months ago there was discussion about adding
> clarification about "free and open license", to add both share alike
> and attribution clauses. I have two questions - can it still be done,
> what was working group answer to this, or if not, then why not.
>

Peter

I believe yours is essentially the same point raised by me on 17 Nov at 
13:31, then repeated by Andrzej Zaborowski on 20 Nov at 20:24, and which has 
not yet been answered.

Coincidentally I was going to email the LWG about it today, but since you 
have raised it on the list here, I will refrain from asking the LWG direct 
for now.

Regards

David

> Cheers,
> Peter.
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>