[OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] Statement from nearmap.com regarding submission of derived works from PhotoMaps to OpenStreetMap

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 19 June 2011 12:31, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 19 June 2011 20:24, Robert Whittaker (OSM)
> <robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 18 June 2011 11:37, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 18 June 2011 20:35, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Not sure of you point, since cc-by-sa can't be magically turned into
>>>> ODBL data, it can only stay cc-by-sa.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Oh and as for CTs, they don't guarantee attribution in future
>>> licenses, so that wouldn't be compatible with CC-by either...
>>
>> According to this recent post, LWG are saying that CC-By and CC-By-SA
>> sources are both currently fine to use under the CTs:
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011931.html
>
> Since CC-by and CC-by-SA both require attribution than the CTs would
> have guarantee attribution, yet ODBL allows people to output PD tiles,
> which don't offer attribution.
>
> So for the above statement to be true they'd have to enforce
> attribution on produced works at the very least.

I think what Robert is trying to say is that you only have to check
for compatibility with the current license.  But the current license
is CC-By-SA, so CC-By-SA data would be okay.

But this is quite confusing, I'm not sure if Robert is right and Mike
Collinson's e-mail makes it even more difficult to interpret the
Contributor Terms becuase it seems to say:
"contributed data needs to be ODbL compatible but doesn't need to be
strictly compatible with all the possible future free and open
licenses"

But I see only two possible interpretations of the Contributor Terms:

 * "contributed data needs to be compatible with the *current* license" or

 * "contributed data needs to be compatible with CC-By-SA, ODbL
1.0+DbCL and any future free and open license"

with no midway point.

Cheers