[Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View

[Robert Whittaker (OSM)]

On 24 May 2010 14:56, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
>> My understanding is that the current terms from OS are
>> incompatible with ODbL (in particular the part that allows
>> produced works to be released to the public domain).
>
> This is a canard and I wish it would stop coming up. ODbL does _not_ say
> that Produced Works can be released entirely without restriction (US "public
> domain").
>
> 4.3 is very clear that "if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must
> include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to
> make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise
> exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the
> Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective
> Database, and that it is available under this License".
>
> OS OpenData is released under an attribution-only licence (compatible with
> CC-BY) and the terms of attribution are, in my entirely unqualified view,
> satisfied by ODbL 4.3.

My reading of 4.3 is that you would have to tell people that the image
was derived from OSM and that the OSM database is available under
ODbL. As far as I can see, 4.3 contains nothing to specify what
license you are or aren't allowed to release the produced work under,
nor anything to require you to maintain a specific attribution
statement from the third-party data supplier such as OS.

If I'm allowed under ODbL to release an image with only the statement
"Contains information from DATABASE NAME, which is made available here
under the Open Database License (ODbL)." as suggested by the ODbL
text, then this is surely in contravention of the attribution
requirements specified by OS as (a) I haven't included their specific
attribution/copyright text, and (b) I haven't had to place any
restrictions on other users of my image that would require them to
provide any such attribution either.

Both of the following links seem to suggest you should be able to
release "produced work" images in this way:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Use_Cases#Using_OSM_data_in_a_raster_map_for_a_book.2C_newsletter.2C_website.2C_blog_or_similar_work

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License_FAQ#How_does_this_affect_Wikipedia_and_other_projects_that_want_to_use_our_maps.3F

Anyway, even if this turns out to be a non-issue, there is still the
problem of getting OS to agree to the new contributor terms if OSMF
decides they need all OSM data under them. I really can't see OS being
happy with either OSMF's right to re-license or the terms of DbCL.

-- 
Robert Whittaker