[OSM-legal-talk] licenses suitable for import

[Dale Kunce]

I'm very curious about the cc-by compatibility. The Red Cross is doing a
very large mapping project in West Africa, ground truthing a lot of the
data created by remote mappers during ebola. As part of the project we want
to release the data both in OSM and in a more complete form (not all data
gathered is appropriate for osm) on HDX. Our original thinking was to
double license the data, Cc-by 4.0 for HDX with an explicit license for
OSM.

What is the best route for organizations to do something like this. From
this thread I can see the need for a checklist or at the very minimum a
wiki page with sample language. Forgive me if this already exist I haven't
found anything online yet.

Dale
On Mar 18, 2016 9:58 PM, "Simon Poole" <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

> 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> 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>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Tobias Wendorff
>>> <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
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing listlegal-talk at openstreetmap.orghttps://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/20160319/50d6dba7/attachment.html>