[OSM-legal-talk] How to modify data provider license (WMATA)
Josh Doe
josh at joshdoe.com
Tue Sep 13 17:52:20 BST 2011
As I've had no response from this list, I'll just tell him that the
attribution requirement can't be so strict. A verbose example comes
from the ODbL (4.3 from
http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/):
"[I]f you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice
associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any
Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise
exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the
Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective
Database, and that it is available under this License."
-Josh
On Mon, Sep 12, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Josh Doe <josh at joshdoe.com> wrote:
> I've been asked by the GIS manager at WMATA (the transit authority for
> the Metro DC, USA) how we would like their license changed so their
> data can be used in OSM. I suggested they adopt something like the
> ODbL or CC0, but they said that's highly unlikely and far better to
> modify the existing license. Here is the current version:
> http://www.wmata.com/rider_tools/license_agreement.cfm
>
> AFAICT, the only problem is with paragraph 4:
> LICENSEE must state in legible bold print on the same page where WMATA
> Transit Information appears and in close proximity thereto, “WMATA
> Transit information provided on this site is subject to change without
> notice. For the most current information, please click here.”
>
> Perhaps the fewest changes that would make it work would be the following:
> LICENSEE should state in legible bold print on the same page where
> WMATA Transit Information appears and in close proximity thereto,
> “WMATA Transit information provided on this site is subject to change
> without notice. For the most current information, please click here.”,
> whenever technically feasible.
>
> Or perhaps we could even just change one word, must->should, as I
> believe "should" is understood to mean recommended, though of course
> IANAL.
>
> Any other suggestions I should pass on to him?
> Thanks,
> -Josh
>
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list