[OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license
Francis Davey
fjmd1a at gmail.com
Fri Sep 17 13:31:50 BST 2010
On 17 September 2010 13:22, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net> wrote:
>
> But your missing the point. The since the CT's allow the possibility in the
> future that data might be published without attribution, then its impossible
> to contribute data (and still be acting in accordance with the CT's) which
> absolutely requires that attribution.
>
To clarify: the CT's as the currently stand:
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms
require (per clause 4) OSMF to attribute on request. There is no
mechanism for that term to be changed, so regardless of what licence
may be used, OSMF must still comply with clause 4 and hence attribute
on request.
It is correct that a contributor could not comply fully with the CT's
and at the same time contribute data from the Ordinance Survey under
the OS's existing licence. That is no different from data that is
currently available under (say) CC-BY-SA or many other licences. I
beleive (but don't know) that the LWG are working on new wording that
deals with contributing not one's own data, but data drawn from (or
still subject to licence under) one of the well known "open" licenses
that are available.
The reason a contributor could not do this is simply the breadth of
rights given to OSMF under clause 2. Few open licenses will give a
contributor *that* much and so the contributor cannot agree to
anything so wide. That is (I believe) a reason for the review of the
licence.
This is a separate consideration from the compatibility of the ODbL
with any particular open licence (such as the OS's). Compatibility
(for contributors) with the CT's and compatibility with the ODbL are
pretty much orthogonal questions.
--
Francis Davey
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list