[Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms

[Robert Whittaker (OSM)]

On 16 June 2011 17:50, Michael Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz> wrote:
> Here is as much information as I can give. It is not conclusive so I would
> summarise by saying that I *personally* (great emphasis!) have some
> contributions derived from OS StreetView data and have accepted the new
> terms without qualms. I explain my reasons below and what I intend to do. I
> hope they help you make up your own mind either way if you are in a similar
> situation.

Thank you for this, but I believe it only addresses half of the issue,
namely whether OS OpenData can be distributed under ODbL. The other
half is whether OS OpenData is compatible with the OSM Contributor
Terms.

If I've understood things correctly, the CTs (in particular Clause 2)
go further than ODbL compatibility, and require you to have additional
rights to grant to OSMF on your contributions. My reading of clause 2
is that it requires your contributions to be able to be distributed
under any "free and open" license. Some have disputed this view,
claiming that the intent of the CTs is only that you must warrant that
your data is compatible with the current licenses. Can you confirm
LWG's position on this, and if it's been subject to legal review?

Can you also confirm whether or not the legal review of Os OpenData
also looked at the compatibility of OS OpenData with clause 2 of the
OSM Contributor Terms? I've provided reasoning at
http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Robert%20Whittaker as to why I
believe the two are not compatible. I've yet to see any argument to
explain why my reasoning there is incorrect.

Given that I've made use of OS OpenData in the past, I could probably
be persuaded to sign the CTs based on the requirements of clause 1
(ODbL compatibility), but not with the additional requirements of
clause 2. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable in my view that individual
mappers are being forced to make complicated legal decisions like
this, when even the LWG is not prepared to do so officially.

Unless you want to postpone the move to phase 4 or have another
solution, I would suggest that you must amend the CTs to provide an
explicit exemption from clauses 1 and 2 for any IP connected with OS
OpenData. This way, everyone could happily sign the CTs, and OSMF/LWG
can sort out the legal issues surrounding whether or not they are able
to distribute OS OpenData derived content at their leisure. LWG should
also issue firm guidance on whether or not CT-accepted mappers may
continue to use OS OpenData until these issues are resolved.

Regards,

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker