[Talk-ca] Building Footprint Upload to OSM

[john whelan]

 >> In the past the local variants of the OGL Canada have varied widely
>> and have in some cases included additional terms that have made them
>> incompatible with the ODbL and in some instances non-open. For this
>> reason we are not making a blanket statement on other such localised
>> versions of the OGL at this point in time and will continue to review
>> them on a case by case base.
>
> For example, if the fictional City of Rotonto took the exact text of
> the Ottawa ODL 2.0 and merely replaced instances of “Ottawa” with
> “Rotonto”, the above minute indicates that the Rotonto ODL would
> still need LWG approval.

LWG has given an opinion that the Canadian Federal Government's 2.0 license
and the municipal variation that Ottawa are acceptable.

Logically provided only the name of the city is changed in the municipal
variation then there are no changes to the Open Data license. There is a
concern that if so much as a comma etc is changed then they would like to
review it and I totally agree with that statement.

I understand your frustration that the Toronto license has not yet been
approved but that one is not the Federal Government's Open Data license but
one it came up with by itself.

Cheerio John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20180308/0ea8b056/attachment.html>