[talk-au] Implications of license change on use of Australian data sources (e.g. nearmap)

[Alex Kwiatkowski]

I've just got a response from our legal team and this is what they say.

"We are always keen to clear up any uncertainties regarding derived works.
Our requirement is that derived works are availlable to others, using a
Creative Commons style license. In other words, we share the same approach
as OSM. We know that OSM is looking to move to another open type license,
and the intention is to support whatever license that OSM might use in the
future (so long as that license is an open license, of course). Our legal
people are aware that we might need to change the wording to make this
clearer. In the mean time, you can take it as a given that derived works can
be created under a Creative Commons OR similar license."

I hope that clears it up for you guys and feel free to get in contact with
me if you have any other queries.



On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 6:32 PM, James Livingston <doctau at mac.com> wrote:

> On 09/12/2009, at 6:38 PM, Roy Wallace wrote:
> > "If you derive information from observing our PhotoMaps, and include
> > that information in a work, you will own that work, and may distribute
> > it to others under a Creative Commons licence."
> >
> > Does that not imply that the derived information may only be
> > distributed to others "under a Creative Commons licence"? Maybe I'm
> > reading this incorrectly?
>
> As mentioned by others, the obvious thing to do is ask the NearMap guys
> (I've explicitly CC'd Alex, in case he isn't reading the list) what they
> meant - that's more important than what they actually wrote, since we'd
> obviously want to be nice to them.
>
> But just going off what is written there, if the person tracing owns it (in
> the copyright holder sense), then they can license it however they want. In
> that case, a CC license is just an option (and it says "may" not "may only"
> or "must").
>
>
> With respect to ODbL, I think import CC-BY data into an ODbL database is
> fine - we'd fulfil the attribution requirement (CC-BY-SA wouldn't be, on the
> other hand). The problem if OSM goes ahead with the re-license would be the
> contributor terms, that means you can't import CC-BY data without the
> copyright holders approval.
>



-- 

Regards Alex Kwiatkowski

Email: alex.kwiatkowski at nearmap.com
Mobile: 0421 794 183
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20091210/14fc0ca4/attachment.html>