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

[80n]

On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:18 AM, Grant Slater
<openstreetmap at firefishy.com>wrote:

> On 16 September 2010 21:26, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Grant Slater <
> openstreetmap at firefishy.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> This clashes with the legal advice giving to the Licensing Working
> >> Group in that OS OpenData's license _is_ compatible with ODbL and the
> >> Contributor Terms. Specifically section 4 of the Contributor Terms
> >> provides a mechanism for attribution.
> >
> > Grant, who is giving you legal advice?  Can you quote (or paraphrase) the
> > advice you have been given please?
> >
>
> OSMF's legal council. Sure.
>
Who is OSMF's legal council?  Is it still someone from Wilson Sonsini?


> In my own words and interpritation. LWG asked advice on the
> compatibility of using data licensed under a) CC-BY and; b) OS
> OpenData License (
> http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf
> ) when a contributor uses that data to contribute under the ODbL +
> Contributor Terms (
> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms ) , it was
> added by LWG that section 4 of CT (as linked and worded) provide a
> mechanism for attribution.




> Reply was that on b) explicit permission to
> sub-license is granted by their license with the conditions that
> required attribution is given and sublicensees keep said attribution.
>

So, *providing* the required attribution is given and *providing*
sublicensees preserve that attribution then OS's OpenData License is
compatible, right?


> With this response b) was seen as compatible.


That's a bit of a jump isn't it?  Firstly, the CTs allow you to change the
license without any regard to preserving the attribution clause.  Secondly,
the ODbL doesn't require attribution to Ordnance Survey, only to OSM.
Thirdly I'm not yet convinced that ODbL's attribution is viral.  A
sublicensee of a Produced Work has no obligations that I can see.


> Under a) it was advised
> there is an issue of sub-licensing. Asking source author for
> permission to contribute under CT was an option; as was to keep
> distributing said specific data under license.



> Item b) is still open AFAIK.
>
Do you mean item a) ?



>
> Regards
>  Grant
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100917/3ff4290c/attachment-0001.html>