[OSM-legal-talk] CTs and the 1 April deadline

[Peter Miller]

On 4 January 2011 15:49, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:

>
> Rob Myers wrote:
> > On 04/01/11 15:05, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> >> OS OpenData is AIUI compatible with ODbL and the latest Contributor
> >> Terms.
> > [citation needed]
> > (http://fandomania.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/xfiles1.jpg)
>
> :)
>
> I keep meaning to sit down and write a long blog post about this.
>
> == ODbL ==
>
> The OpenData licence requires attribution, and for that attribution to be
> maintained on subsequent derivatives. ODbL provides that. (My reading of
> ODbL 4.3 is that "reasonably calculated" imposes a downstream attribution
> requirement on Produced Works: after all, if you wildly license your
> Produced Work allows it to be redistributed without attribution of sources,
> you haven't reasonably calculated that any person "exposed to" it will be
> aware of the database and the licence.)
>
> As it happens OS is planning to move to the Open Government Licence, and
> this has an explicit compatibility clause with any ODC attribution licence.
> (It also has sane guidance on attribution, e.g. "If it is not practical to
> cite all sources and attributions in your product prominently, it is good
> practice to maintain a record or list of sources and attributions in
> another
> file. This should be easily accessible or retrievable.")
>
> Personally I find it helpful to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of an
> ODbL-licensed OS OpenData; this makes it easy to follow through the
> attribution requirements for anything OSM-derived that contains a
> substantial amount of OS OpenData.
>
> == Contributor Terms ==
>
> AIUI the attribution requirement is also compatible with CT as of the 1.2.2
> revision (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_933xs7nvfb&pli=1). The
> CTs need a bit of a polish for style (Francis Davey has made good
> suggestions here) but the intention is clear enough.
>
> The Rights Granted section (2) now begins "Subject to Section 3 and 4
> below". The "and 4" is new (added at my request).
>
> Section 4 is a promise of attribution, as required by the OpenData licence.
> So you are not being asked to grant OSMF any rights that the OpenData
> licence doesn't give you.
>
> cheers
> Richard
>

Thank you for the details Richard. However... on this one I have decided to
stay out of any legal discussions and just wait for a clear statement
directly from the licensing group. To date I haven't had that clarification
and private discussions with a member of the group seems to indicate that
the OS would need to adopt Open Government License for it to work and I can
find no statement on the web to say that they are doing that..

As soon as I have confirmation from the license working group then I will
accept the CTs and will then concentrate on getting the foundation to sort
out its Articles of Association.


Regards,


Peter


>
>
> --
> View this message in context:
> http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889131.html
> Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110104/a6dee22c/attachment-0001.html>