[OSM-legal-talk] new wiki page ODbL compatibility of common licenses
dieterdreist at gmail.com
Mon Jan 18 18:11:02 UTC 2016
2016-01-18 16:21 GMT+01:00 Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com>:
> Some comments / suggestions:
thank you for your comments.
> * In the notes column, it might be better to say "rights holder(s)"
> rather than "licensor" since the former is presumably the only
> person/body who is able to give such permission.
> * For the CC-By notes, I think those giving the permission also need
> to be aware that they are (or would need to be) also authorising
> downstream use of their data, without necessarily getting any direct
> attribution from those downstream uses. I'd suggest adding "including
> to cover downstream use in works derived from OSM" to the end of the
I have integrated this now, had first tried to put it in the middle but
then decided to add it to the end as you suggested (but without the "to
cover"), feel free to improve it yourself
* It's not clear from the page whether or not the lack of green in the
> "contributor terms" column precludes the use of ODbL data or not.
> Presumably not, but more consideration should be taken before using
> such data, and with documenting them and attributing it in OSM. If
> this is correct, then something to this effect should be added in an
> explanatory paragraph.
yes, I agree this could be made more verbose. I agree with your
interpretation that it doesn't seem to prevent people from importing this
data now, but it clearly puts more obligations on us that will make future
license changes harder to perform. Feel free to add some explanatory lines
> * It would be good to add the UK's Open Government Licence (OGL) and
> Non-Commercial Government Licence (NCGL) to the list. The first should
> be the same as the ODbL (as it explicitly states the ODbLs terms are
> sufficient to fulfil the obligations under the licence) while the
> second is incompatible due to the NC terms.
can you (or someone else) add these? I am not familiar with them and could
only replicate what you have written above.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk