[Talk-us] Dakota County, MN Building Import

Rory McCann rory at technomancy.org
Fri Apr 7 08:01:58 UTC 2017


The problem is that "open data" is a vague term, so it doesn't really
have a strong legal meaning, and copyright can be tricky/

The problem is their "attribution" requirement. Nothing wrong with that
in principle, OSM has an attribution requirement! It depends what sort
of attribution they want/require. We cannot give the county attribution
on every map that uses OSM, that would be too impractical (since then
we'd have to attribute thousands of other groups on every map image!)

You should contact them, and talk to them. Tell them about OSM. Ask them
if they are OK with the attribution being on this page:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors If so, then that
copyright licence issue goes away.

People from OSM-US will probably be able to help. They can give advice
on the best wording to use, they can give examples of other US
cities/counties which have done similar things. Nothing scares some
officials away like thinking they are the first person to make a big
decision. Giving them examples of other places which have no problem
with the OSM attriubution can be very comforting for some.

There's a good chance they are totally OK with this, and intend this
with their statement, but they might not be totally aware of it. Laws
are tricky things!

This is similar to the attribution part of the CC-BY licences.

On 06.04.2017 19:11, joe.sapletal at charter.net wrote:
> On that page, it states Dakota County encourages public use of this GIS
> data.  “The County Board of Commissioners adopted a policy of free and
> open GIS data, in collaboration with the other six metropolitan counties
> in the Twin Cities.  More information on this initiative is available
> from MetroGIS. “  The page that in links to is the hub for all this
> licensing stuff.  In the documents it defines Open as “no legal
> agreements or other conditional encumbrances required to access the
> data” and “no constrain on the use of the data once acquired by the user”.
>
>
>
> Do they have to explicitly say CT/ODbl on the website or does it suffice
> they link to the policy created by all counties in the  metro that says,
> free take it, no contraints?
>
>
>
> Joe
>
>
>
> *From: *Greg Troxel <mailto:gdt at lexort.com>
> *Sent: *Thursday, April 6, 2017 9:42 AM
> *To: *joe.sapletal at charter.net <mailto:joe.sapletal at charter.net>
> *Cc: *Rory McCann <mailto:rory at technomancy.org>;
> imports at openstreetmap.org <mailto:imports at openstreetmap.org>;
> talk-us at openstreetmap.org <mailto:talk-us at openstreetmap.org>
> *Subject: *Re: [Talk-us] Dakota County, MN Building Import
>
>
>
>
>
> <joe.sapletal at charter.net> writes:
>
>
>
>> Free and Open.  Dakota County encourages the use of its published data
>
>> and supports it being added to OSM.  They are aware of the project and
>
>> do not object.
>
>
>
> That's great to hear.  Can you ask them to update their website to make
>
> permission to copy and incorporate clear, without any additional
>
> requirements, so that it's compatible with the CT/ODbL?
>
>
>
> The terms quoted by Rory and incompatible with OSM.
>
>
>



More information about the Talk-us mailing list