[OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

[Rob Myers]

On 09/16/2010 09:40 PM, John Smith wrote:
> On 17 September 2010 06:36, Rob Myers<rob at robmyers.org>  wrote:
>> If you mean the licence of OSM, that would clash with section 4 of the CTs.
>
> In that case, Section 3 clashes with 4, since there is no minimum
> requirement of attribution.

4 protects contributions made on the basis of an attribution agreement 
from relicencing to a non-attribution licence. This is a good thing.

>> If you mean a produced work, that would clash with section 4.3 of the ODbL.
>
> So then OS data isn't compatible with ODBL?

OS data is BY compatible. 4.3 of the ODbL is about attribution. I don't 
see the problem.

The rights BY gives you may be enough to licence the work under the CTs. 
They may even be enough to allow you to licence the work under the DbCL.

I'm more concerned about the non-endorsement and non-misrepresentation 
clauses of the OS licence. Those are in BY after 2.0, but aren't in the 
ODbL or DbCL.

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/

(IANAL, TINLA.)

- Rob.