[OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL

Paul Norman penorman at mac.com
Wed Jan 16 18:28:10 GMT 2013

> From: Martin Koppenhoefer [mailto:dieterdreist at gmail.com]
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Combining NC Data with ODbL
> This is very sad, I'm sure almost all contributors to OSM would like to
> not have these restrictions for certain scopes (like HOT). What if we
> made a change to our license to have different terms for different
> fields of users? (Or is this completely unrealistic?). E.g. we could
> release data for humanitarian work under attribution only (after
> positive voting by the active contributors) terms?

A license that discriminates based on field of use is not an open license.
The CTs only allow switching to another free and open license. Items 7 and 8
of http://opendefinition.org/okd/ provide more information about
discrimination against persons or groups or discrimination against fields of

Additionally, switching licenses would be a massive undertaking. I suspect
that what they want to do is allowed under the license.* If not and it's
something that should be allowed the next step would be to ask ODC to issue
ODbL v1.1.

Keep in mind that many of these terms like insubstantial are originally
coming from the law, not from ODbL. We won't have real answers to what they
mean until there are court cases that decide this.

*: Likely from the definitions of derivative databases, etc as opposed to

More information about the legal-talk mailing list