[OSM-legal-talk] licenses suitable for import

[Simon Poole]

Diane

Any comment from CC on the -other- issues that have been raised wrt CC
by 4.0 and ODbL compatibility and in general with the way it works for
databases?

Simon

Am 18.03.2016 um 17:19 schrieb Diane Peters:
> Just to be clear on the attribution removal requirement in CC's
> licenses, Erik asserted:
>
> I wish people would stop releasing data with CC-by; "you have to
> attribute us, but you have to remove that attribution when ever we
> want you too" which is not present in ODbL so....
>
> There is no such absolute obligation. In 4.0, the removal requirement
> provides: "If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the
> information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A)
> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#s3a1A> to the
> extent reasonably practicable."  (Sec. 3a3
> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode>). And in 3.0,
> it's "to the extent practicable", which from a CC perspective is
> functionally the equivalent (Sec. 4a
> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode>). 
>
> Diane
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Tom Lee <tlee at mapbox.com
> <mailto:tlee at mapbox.com>> wrote:
>
>     Tobias, the best option for ensuring the data is usable by OSM is
>     an explicit statement of permission for the OpenStreetMap project
>     to incorporate and use the data under the project's terms. This is
>     generally considered preferable to a dataset that is ODbL-licensed
>     without such a statement.
>
>     However, I would encourage you to consider non-OSM users as well
>     when choosing the license. ODbL is not widely used outside of OSM.
>     A license like CC-BY 4.0 is more widely used and actively
>     maintained. Choosing it would ensure compatibility with a large
>     number of non-OSM datasets. And if paired with a permission
>     statement like what's described above, OSM could still use the
>     data without any license compatibility worries.
>
>     Of course, if you can do without attribution, you might consider
>     something even more simple that disclaims liability but imposes no
>     other terms. If that's an option let me know and I can turn up
>     some examples.
>
>     On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Erik Johansson <erjohan at gmail.com
>     <mailto:erjohan at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Tobias Wendorff
>         <tobias.wendorff at tu-dortmund.de
>         <mailto:tobias.wendorff at tu-dortmund.de>> wrote:
>         > Dear list,
>         >
>         > could you please recommend me licenses for releasing data to
>         ODbL?
>         > From my point of view, compatible licenses are CC-license
>         without
>         > "SA" and "BY" and (only if possible) CC0 and PD or finally
>         special
>         > license, like the following one:
>         >
>         > Some crporations like "Deutsche Bahn" (the biggest rail
>         corporation
>         > in Germany) has released their data under CC BY 4.0 with a
>         special text
>         > for OpenStreetMap (roughly translated):
>         >
>         > "If the data of Deutsche Bahn is part of the OpenStreetMap
>         database work,
>         > a reference to the Deutsche Bahn AG in the list of
>         contributors is enough.
>         > Crediting DB at each use of the data by a licensee of the
>         mentioned database
>         > work is no longer necessary then. Indirect credits (with
>         reference to the
>         > publisher of this databse work, which refers to the DB) is
>         sufficient."
>         >
>         > Actually, that's a kind of dual-licensing with a special
>         license for OSM.
>         > From my understanding, releasing data ODbL would be the
>         worst thing,
>         > since the "BY" attribution of the data donator isn't
>         compatible, is it?
>
>
>         I've choosen not to start on a couple of imports because of
>         the CC-by
>         issue, I've gotten ok from the owners but they want to be
>         included on
>         http://osm.org/contributors . Deutsche Bahn seems to be much more
>         free, I interpret it as source=Deutsche Bahn seems to be enough.
>
>
>         I wish people would stop releasing data with CC-by; "you have to
>         attribute us, but you have to remove that attribution when ever we
>         want you too" which is not present in ODbL so....
>
>
>
>         --
>         /emj
>
>         _______________________________________________
>         legal-talk mailing list
>         legal-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     legal-talk mailing list
>     legal-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>     https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20160318/2a6789b8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 473 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20160318/2a6789b8/attachment-0001.sig>