[talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...

John Smith deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Sun Jul 18 13:24:40 BST 2010


On 18 July 2010 22:19, Grant Slater <openstreetmap at firefishy.com> wrote:
> On 18 July 2010 12:36, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I sent an email to Nearmap today to clarify about licensing of derived
>> data, the gist of the response was they won't accept anything less
>> than a share alike license, while the ODBL may be compatible, the new
>> Contributor Terms (CTs) aren't so on top of all the cc-by data going
>> bye bye, all the Nearmap data will disappear as well.
>>
>
> Why would the CC-BY data go "bye bye"? The Licensing Working Group is
> still working with the lawyer regarding this and as far as I know
> nobody with any legal sense has made any statement why CC-BY would be
> a problem under OdbL.

Did you even read what I wrote, the problem is with the Contributor
Terms, specifically section 3, however everyone seems to think cc-by
is compatible with the ODBL, but cc-by-sa isn't even though they are
both share alike licenses they are some significant differences that
make them incompatible.

> And regardless...
> I used a PD data sets for creating the OSM coastline of Africa. It
> took me 3 months in 2006. I imagine if for example the much quoted
> CC-BY coastline of Australia was removed tomorrow it could be rebuilt
> within a week from new data with community assistance. Yes I am aware
> there are other CC-BY imported datasets too.

Liz simplified things too much, this isn't just about coast lines,
there is a lot of other information derived from other cc-by and/or
cc-by-sa data.

> John care to join us on the Licensing Working Group calls? Or
> alternatively let us know what should be changed. Maybe we can adjust
> time to better suit your timezone.

In short, ODBL is probably ok, but the CTs, specifically section 3
isn't compatible with cc-by or Nearmap...




More information about the Talk-au mailing list