[OSM-talk] linz dataset

[David Ebling]

Am I the only person observing this conversation on
the mailing list who is deeply, deeply concerned by
the notion of importing data that requires attribution
other than the standard OSM CC-by-SA? The fact that
whenever we display NZ we would have to display "crown
copyright" somewhere totally undermines the purpose of
the CC-by-SA licence - to make sure people know that
the data is freely available.

As an outsider to the project, I would see "crown
copyright" and immediately assume that I was not able
to do what I want with the data. It will cause
confusion because it's the same copyright notice
displayed on OS maps, even if the license is
different.

If people see "crown copyright" I think it could also
make people less likely to contribute to OSM in the
future because it causes confusion over the idea that
OSM is mainly user-generated.

Perhaps I just object to having to put "crown
copyright" on all the maps that show NZ because it
just seems like someone else retains ownership of OSM
data. I feel that's against the very ethos of OSM.

I think it is preferable to make our own dataset of NZ
than to undermine the very idea of OSM. We've done it
for lots of other countries, and it will get done
eventually. Let's not ruin the whole project for the
sake of taking a short cut! Once we import copyrighted
data we can't go back very easily. This step shouldn't
be taken lightly.

David


> On 02/04/2008, Chris Hill <chillly809 at yahoo.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > This extra set of steps for the Linz data seems a
> step too far for me.  I'm especially concerned about
> the the fact that they insist on the phrase 'Crown
> Copyright reserved' - they are surely maintaining NZ
> Crown Copyright over the data.  This is exactly what
> I thought OSM was seeking to avoid.
> >
> 
> not exactly - this info from the linz website sheds
> some light:
> 
> http://www.linz.govt.nz/home/disclaimer/index.html
> "Crown Copyright
> 
> Land Information New Zealand owns the Crown
> copyright in the material
> available for viewing or downloading from this
> website as provided in
> the Copyright Act 1994.
> 
> The material may be used, copied and re-distributed
> free of charge in
> any format or media. Where the material is
> redistributed to others the
> source and copyright status must be acknowledged."
> 
> i.e. we and subsequent users are given explicit
> permission to
> re-distribute and edit it as much as we like, so
> long as we say who
> created it.
> 
> which sounds exactly like cc-by-sa under a different
> name:
> 
> http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/
> 
> "You are free:
>     * to Share ? to copy, distribute and transmit
> the work
>     * to Remix ? to adapt the work
> 
> Under the following conditions:
>     *  Attribution. You must attribute the work in
> the manner
> specified by the author or licensor (but not in any
> way that suggests
> that they endorse you or your use of the work).
>     *  Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or
> build upon this work,
> you may distribute the resulting work only under the
> same or similar
> license to this one.
>     * For any reuse or distribution, you must make
> clear to others the
> license terms of this work. The best way to do this
> is with a link to
> this web page."
> 
> they assert copyright, but are agreeing not to wield
> it in any way
> that is bad to us
> 
> the entire question i am asking here revolves around
> "Where the material is redistributed to others the
> source and
> copyright status must be acknowledged."
> and us finding a method for doing that, which we and
> linz are happy with
> 
> 
> >  cheers, Chris



      __________________________________________________________
Sent from Yahoo! Mail.
A Smarter Inbox http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html