[OSM-legal-talk] What licences (other than ODbL) are compatible with OSM after 1st April

mayeul.kauffmann at free.fr mayeul.kauffmann at free.fr
Fri Mar 23 13:31:51 GMT 2012

From: "Paul Norman" <penorman at mac.com>
"If the import source is something other than PD this point should be discussed in the required messages to the imports@ mailing list before importing. That way the community can decide if they want it with the licensing issues. "

Hence the following is a sufficient but not a necessary condition to use a database as an OSM data source:
"(the data provider) releases the following database in public domain".

Probably some potential data providers would refuse this but still agree to contribute to OSM (and allow relicensing [1]).

Would the following wording (A) be the sufficient and necessary condition?
"A) (the data provider) authorises any person to insert the content of the following database (or any part thereof), as well as derived works, into the OpenStreetMap database, under the conditions of the OpenStreetMap Contributor Terms 1.2.4".

What do you think? Of course this would need to be improved (and I'm not a native speaker).

Is it OK to write the version (1.2.4)? What if the terms change before the data are imported?

Optionally, would provision (B) be OK?
"B) Any person inserting these data must include the name of (the data provider) in the value of the "attribution" key (potentially with the name of other sources used) at the moment of insertion or edition of the data in the OpenStreetMap database".
This would satisfy organisations wishing to get some attribution. It does not prevent removing the name in the "attribution" key later (for example because the data was modified so much that it keeps little or no link to the original data). Even in case of removal of the name in the "attribution" key later, with the current API and website  the attribution will still be visible in the feature history, and this may be enough for the data provider.

Hence with A) and B), organisations could contribute data while still retaining some attribution and making sure re-use is fully permitted. It would be great to have such guidelines without the need for the community to discuss this every time on a case by case basis.

Thanks for your comments!

[Note 1] Data provider may accept relicensing in particular because (my understanding is that) the OSMF cannot relicense under a licence that would prohibit free re-use (the ToC link to http://www.opendefinition.org/okd/ whose item "3. Reuse" makes Share-Alike or similar provisions mandatory). Whereas "public domain" is not Share-Alike.

More information about the legal-talk mailing list