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

[Steve Bennett]

On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Alex Kwiatkowski <
alex.kwiatkowski at nearmap.com> wrote:

> Which part is contradictory so a can give them a starting point.
>

"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."

1)  "You will own that work" (implication: you can do whatever the hell you
want with it)
2) "You may distribute it to others under a creative commons licence"
(implication: but not other licences).

If you "own" it, you can distribute as CC, or you can sell it, or you can PD
it. Or you can not distribute it at all. The second statement is either
totally redundant (should probably be clarified as "and may distribute that
under any licence as you see fit"), or restrictive and contradicts the first
one.

It seems to me that the terms need to more closely define "derive
information" (ie, to specifically refer to tracing streets), then completely
open the "you will own that work" section.

But the short term solution would be to specifically refer to OSM's
licensing.

Steve
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20091210/7be00028/attachment.html>