[OSM-legal-talk] FW: NLSF & OSM license check / comments needed

Michael Collinson mike at ayeltd.biz
Thu May 10 17:01:48 BST 2012

Hi Pekka,

Thanks for taking this on. I have put some comments in-line. The usual 
caveat, IANAL!

> Dear Friends,
> This legal-lists seem to be quite quiet. So, maybe you all have plenty 
> of time to discuss about National Land Survey of Finland (NLSF) 
> license vs. OSM licenses.
> As you may know, NLSF has released all their topographic information 
> for free use. Their license is open, more open than OSM (CC-BY-SA or 
> ODbL). I think. You can read NLSF's license terms: 
> http://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/en/NLS_open_data_licence_version1_20120501
> It seems that quite OSMers in Finland like to benefit NLSF data sets. 
> We have good discussion going on about imports,  background 
> map/imagery usage etc. Mainly discussions will be in Finnish on IRC, 
> forums and mailing lists.
> Now we have also some legal questions and I'd like to hear your comments:
> · Is NLSF Open Data license compatible with OSM current and new license?
There is a problem wíth 2.2 "require third parties to provide the same 
information when granting rights to copies of dataset(s) or products and 
services containing such data and"

This should be theoretically OK under CC-BY-SA but does imply that any 
user of OSM data is going to have to check whether it contains it 
contains NLSF data and attribute, even on a map. The impracticability of 
this was a major reason for moving away from CC-BY-SA.

ODbL does not force map makers to attribute each and every contributor. 
This is by design but would violate this NLSF requirement.  We had the 
same problem with the Ordnance Survey in the UK. I can email you the 
text that I sent them to explain the issue.

> · If we import NLSF data, we need to add link to their license into 
> http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright/en. Right?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution is the "official" place. 
  Merging the two together in some way is an LWG TODO.
> · Contributors: we need to add NLSF to this page: 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution. Is there any "format" 
> what they should answer? Should this demand come from OSMF or can I do it?
You can do it.  The attribution given to the Ordance Survey can be used 
as a template.
> · NLSF terms of use, section 2.2 last bullet:
> /...remove the name of the Licensor from the product or service, if 
> required to do so by the Licensor....
> /Some people think that this is barrier and OSM license won't accept 
> this. Personally I don't see any problems with this. If we import NLSF 
> data to OSM (and we have mentions in wiki about their copyright etc.) 
> and in the future NLSF demands to remove their name, we can remove it 
> from wiki pages. We don't include NLSF name in every single copy 
> (digital and/or analog) and we don't clear NLSF names from OSM copies.
I agree with you.  The English version unambiguously talks about 
removing the "name" of the Licensor, not the "data" of the Licensor. 
Easy enough.

> If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask in the list or 
> directly. I also promise to act as contact person between OSM and 
> NLSF, there is already some confusion and I will make separate email 
> about that.
> Rgs,
> Pekka
> --
> Pekka Sarkola
> Gispo Oy
> pekka.sarkola at gispo.fi <mailto:pekka.sarkola at gispo.fi>   - GSM +358 
> 40 725 2042
> www.gispo.fi <http://www.gispo.fi> -- www.paikkatieto.com 
> <http://www.paikkatieto.com>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20120510/53dffb4c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the legal-talk mailing list