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

[Richard Fairhurst]

Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
> ODbL 4.3 requires that the source database be attributed, not any 
> data sources that went into making that database.

As I said, to understand the attribution "chain" in ODbL, I find it helpful
to consider OSM as a Derivative Database of OS OpenData (i.e. "Extracting or
Re-utilising the whole or a Substantial part of the Contents in a new
Database").

To take the example given in ODbL 4.3a, "DATABASE NAME" would be defined by
the database provider (in this case OSMF). For the Derivative Database that
comprises OSM original user contributions and some extracts from OS
OpenData, this name could include the attribution required by OS.

> It also provides no explicit requirement for any downstream users to 
> attribute the source of the produced work

I think it's reasonably well attested that we disagree on that. :)

> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases#Use_of_maps_in_Wikipedia_and_Wikitravel
> would seem to contradict your later assertion that produced works 
> can only be licensed under an attribution license.

The reply in green (which I believe is from lawyers retained by OSMF at one
point, though not from ODC) says "no license restrictions", yes, but it then
goes on to contradict itself by saying "...although notice must be given".
The latter sounds like attribution to me but, again, I think it's reasonably
well attested that we disagree.

> That requirement is only for OSMF to provide attribution when they
> distribute the OSM data. It does not force OSMF to require other
> downstream data users to provide similar attribution when they
> distribute derivative works / databases. So this clause would not 
> stop OSMF releasing the data as PD as long as OSMF still maintains 
> an appropriate attribution page themselves.

That is true. If OSMF wanted to release the data as PD, it would have to
delete any OS OpenData-derived content first. 

Given the past few months I think it would be difficult for OSMF to argue
that it wasn't aware of the issue. So when David says "It says they 'may'
remove the data", I'd add the follow-up "...and if they choose not to, they
are well aware they are likely to be sued, and on their heads be it".

cheers
Richard


-- 
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5889691.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.