[Talk-GB] OSM Contributor Terms vs OS OpenData Licence
Robert Whittaker (OSM)
robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com
Mon Apr 18 23:19:41 BST 2011
On 18 April 2011 22:50, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> TimSC wrote:
>> We do have an imperfect attribution on the wiki  for CC attribution.
>> Agreeing to the CTs seems to be a bigger violation than our current
>> practice, because it declares that the contributor has unlimited rights over
>> the data (in order to grant OSMF that right too).
> I think that's not correct, at least not for the current version of the
> contributor terms. "Unlimited rights" is certainly a gross overstatement.
> Current CTs only require you to declare that the data you contribute is
> compatible with the current license regime?
No, Clause 2 of the CTs requires you to grant OSMF "a worldwide,
royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any
act that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related
right over anything within the Contents..." subject only to some
limitations on how OSMF may license the OSM database to others. Those
limitations do not include any obligation for OSMF to ensure future
licences have an attribution clause, and *that* is the problem I'm
trying to highlight -- as it appears to me to prevent the use of any
data sources that require some form of viral attribution, and
specifically OS OpenData.
(Even if you take the view that a link to an OSM "List of
Contributors" page satisfies typical attribution requirements (as we
currently assume), there is nothing in the CTs to guarantee that
future OSM licenses will obligate downstream users to attribute OSM or
link back to such a page.)
More information about the Talk-GB