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

[Rob Myers]

dOn 04/01/11 15:49, Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>
> == 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.)

Yes that's a good reading of the licence (IANAL, TINLA).

> 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.

The ODbL is not explicitly described as a modular extension or 
composition of ODC-BY but the ODbL does describe itself as "attribution 
[...] for Data/Databases" and the attribution terms of ODC-BY are 
*identical* to the ODbL. And the OGL explicitly states that it is 
complicit 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.")

That is sane guidance *for the database*, but it may not satisfy the 
attribution requirement of its *contents*. This is hopefully irrelevant 
as the OGL states that it is compatible with any ODC attribution licence

> 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.

Yes this is a very useful thought experiment.

The DbCL isn't mentioned by the OGL *but* the DbCL explicitly states 
that you must comply with the ODbL, which appears to be an ODC 
attribution licence as described by the OGL.

> == 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.

I agree that the attribution promise is a complete answer to any 
attribution requirements or concerns.

The contributor terms don't guarantee the "don't break the law" and 
non-misrepresentation parts of the OGL. The former is pretty redundant, 
the latter isn't present in ODC-BY or the ODbL, and the OGL is 
explicitly compatible with any ODC attribution licence.

Thank you for posting this. You have allayed my concerns. :-)

- Rob.