[talk-au] QTOPO online maps

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Mon Sep 16 08:51:12 UTC 2019


The text in the waiver referencing the ODbL is there so that it is clear
that we are not proposing completely waiving the restrictions on DRM use
(though for produced works it does essentially amount to that, but not
for the data itself).

Why doesn't anybody else (outside of OSM) have an issue with the terms
that we are asking to be waived? Because they simply ignore them.

I have yet to see any data project proprietary, closed or open that
actually conveys this correctly to their users (CC BY 4.0 IMHO actually
rules out using so licensed data in closed projects). Given that the
department in question and the other distributors of data on CC BY terms
must be aware that the relevant terms are as a rule ignored, you would
think that giving a positive answer to an organisation that is so polite
to ask before using the data would just be a formality, but it seems not.

Simon

Am 16.09.2019 um 04:42 schrieb Jonathon Rossi:
> I guess lawyers don't want to authorise and public servants don't want
> to sign anything that isn't written there, the reference material is
> all useful and explains everything but that isn't on the signing page.
>
> Maybe instead of this:
> > [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license as to
> OpenStreetMap and its
> > users with the understanding that the Open Database License 1.0
> requires open access
> > or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap
>
> Something like this:
> [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license which
> prohibits downstream restrictions preventing OpenStreetMap data under
> Open Database License 1.0 to be distributed as a combined distribution
> containing CC BY 4.0 licensed data. CC BY 4.0 licensed data remains as
> such. 
>
> Could be improved more, but a start. Thoughts?
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:03 PM Andrew Harvey
> <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com <mailto:andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:48, Jonathon Rossi <jono at jonorossi.com
>     <mailto:jono at jonorossi.com>> wrote:
>
>         I agree that neither side is likely change their position.
>
>         Could we propose (to OSMF) new wording for an updated waiver
>         that makes it clearer, the attribution half doesn't seem like
>         a problem, its the second half which mentions ODbL even though
>         the cover letter block explains it they aren't signing that
>         page. When we were communicating with DNRM early last year
>         they do appear to think that they need to relicense under the
>         ODbL, and I can now sort of see how the waiver could be read
>         that way.
>
>
>     I think OSMF's blog post, the cover letter and the waiver form are
>     very clear. What changes would you propose?
>
>     I got the impression as well, especially with the reply "The
>     department will not provide the data under an ODbl licence." I did
>     try to explain that they don't need to relicense the data under
>     ODbL and that we are just asking for one exception to CC BY in
>     order to be compatible with ODbL.
>
>
>         Waiver:
>         > [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license
>         as to OpenStreetMap and its
>         > users with the understanding that the Open Database License
>         1.0 requires open access
>         > or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap
>
>         CCBY4 Clause:
>         > _No downstream restrictions_. You may not offer or impose
>         any additional or different
>         > terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological
>         Measures to, the
>         > Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the
>         Licensed Rights by any recipient
>         > of the Licensed Material.
>
>
>     That's it, as I understand it ODbL says you can provide data with
>     these technical restrictions so long as a parallel version is made
>     available without the technical restrictions. CC BY says you can't
>     have any technical restrictions, even if you make a parallel
>     version without the technical restrictions.
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jono
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20190916/728ba187/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20190916/728ba187/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list