[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 begins Sunday

Francis Davey fjmd1a at gmail.com
Fri Apr 15 20:16:37 BST 2011


On 15 April 2011 19:35, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

>>
>> In addition, it is imho not clear that not some of the many imports listed
>> as "Attribution" licensed wouldn't fall into this category, too (rather
>> than
>> in category 3 as CC-BY).

I haven't seen this list so cannot comment.

[snip]

>
> The Ordnance Survey Open Data License, for example, explicitly permits
> sublicensing so that one would be ok. Also, NearMap imagery could easily be

I am afraid it wouldn't be OK because it requires that all
sub-licenses (including onward sub-licenses) have a specified
attribution statement. That is a restriction on use which means that a
contributor (as licensee) does not have sufficient right to grant all
the rights granted in clause 2.

There's a practical outworking of this: the attribution and licence
structure of OSMF does not appear to require me a user of OSM to add
the specified attribution statement myself, which is a requirement of
the Ordnance Survey Open Data Licence.

> made compatible if NearMap were to say "yeah fine, everyone has the right to
> allow OSMF to sublicence under CC-BY-SA or ODbL".

Better would be "the right to grant all rights to OSMF". A lot more is
being granted than just a right to sublicense under CC-BY-SA etc.

>
> The change in the CT means that in the early versions, you had to vouch for
> the data you contribute being compatible with any future license change.
> This isn't the case any more, you only have to say that it is compatible
> with the current license and that you have the right to authorize OSMF to
> distribute the data under that license.
>
> This last sentence, when read strictly, rules out the import of plain
> "CC-BY-SA or ODbL" data sets without the sublicensing option.

If I understand you correctly, that's right. Clause 2 appears to
prevent most licensed data from being imported. Recently on this list
(I think) we were pointed at the LWG's minutes where it was decided to
take this approach to avoid various risks to OSMF.

-- 
Francis Davey



More information about the legal-talk mailing list