[Talk-GB] building shapes from OS Street View

[Robert Whittaker (OSM)]

On 24 May 2010 16:42, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net> wrote:
> Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote:
>> 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.
>
> To comply with ODbL for data obtained from OSM, you have to at least provide
> attribution to OSM.
>
> That does not preclude that the data may have other attribution
> requirements, and it does not prevent you from fulfilling them.

Although it doesn't prevent any voluntary fulfilment, the ODbL terms
give you explicit rights to use the database in any way you want
without violating any copyright/contract/database rights in the
database, as long as you follow the various requirements. There's no
requirement to provide further attribution on produced works, so for
produced works from an ODbL database you would not be violating any
database rights were you to omit any other attribution requirements on
produced works.

The only other way to force users to use attribution would be via
copyright on individual data items. But the proposal is to license the
individual items in OSM under DbCL, which means there would be no
additional restrictions there.

Thus ODbL+DbCL grants users the right not to have to include
additional attribution statements on produced works, provided they
follow the rest of the requirements of ODbL. (This usually includes
releasing the database that the work was produced from under ODbL, and
the database may require additional copyright notices attached to it,
but not the produced work. This link back to the database may be
enough to satisfy some people's attribution requirements, but it won't
necessarily cover all such requirements.)

With no way to force users to add specific attribution text to
produced works, if a database contains data that requires such
attribution, I would conclude that the resulting database cannot
legally be released under ODbL+DbCL. Were someone to do so, they'd be
giving people a license to do stuff that they don't have the right to
offer. (Kind of like releasing an image obtained under CC-By as CC0.)

-- 
Robert Whittaker