[OSM-talk] Explaining to NASA why the ASTER data should be freely licensed

[Arlindo Pereira]

In such cases, wouldn't be enough to add a source=NASA or source=ASTER tag?

[]

2009/7/2 Tyler <tyler.ritchie at gmail.com>

> Ævar, Thanks for trying to get clarification. Despite my disagreeing that
> there is any real restriction on the data that affects its use in OSM,
> clarification and explicit permission is always a good thing.
>
> This should have been cross-posted to legal, probably. And let me preface
> it all with IANAL... Yet.
>
> Martin:
>
>> What about derived data? SRTM is used to generate hillshades and contour
>> lines for example. ASTER data would be good for that too. Do they have some
>> less strict terms about distributing such derived data (like requiring only
>> attribution), or is their policy for it the same?
>
>
> I take it to mean that you can re-distribute derived data, that would be
> the "project of intended use" part. They have that in there so that they
> can mitigate the number of sources of the ASTER, so that there's not a bunch
> of different ASTER Jun 2009 datasets all saying they're the same thing on a
> bunch of different University servers free to the public.
>
> Jeff:
>
>> That clause seems very similar to the BSD advertising clause (and
>> is problematic for the same reasons)
>>
>
> I assume you mean "When presenting or publishing ASTER GDEM data, I agree
> to include
> 'ASTER GDEM is a product of METI and NASA.'" That's pretty standard
> attribution stuff. Which we should want to encourage. Being able to find the
> source is probably sufficient (so on a printed map you could say "for a list
> of all the sources see www.ReallyAwesomeVolcanoMap.com/sources"), but also
> doesn't appear to be a required agreement (it doesn't have the "required",
> which leads me to believe it is optional).
>
> If there were a more standard way to get attribution data on the slippymap
> (a link: view all attributed sources in this extent) then OSM would probably
> be fine, and 3rd parties attributing data correctly is the 3rd party's
> responsibility. Immutable historical attribution would also be cool so that
> once all the roads from TIGER are correct and totally different there is
> still historical attribution data. The attribution mess has been what's
> stopped me from using a lot of available State data. Which has no
> restrictions as long as there is attribution. And attribution is such a
> cluster with OSM data right now that I just don't really want to deal with
> it, there's lots to do elsewhere.
>
> The BSD argument was that there would be a spiraling out of control "This
> product was derived from this product was derived from this product was
> derived from..." a better restriction would have been. "When presenting or
> publishing ASTER GDEM data, I agree to provide attribution to METI and
> NASA." Which would allow for more options on how to give the attribution.
> But like I said, that seems optional to me.
>
> Finally, if someone is planning on doing any sort of stuff with the ASTER
> GDEMs in the US, there's higher resolution data available from USGS, 3m in
> some cases, so use that instead.
>
> -Tyler
>
> _______________________________________________
> talk mailing list
> talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>


-- 
Arlindo Saraiva Pereira Jr.

Bacharelando em Sistemas de Informação - UNIRIO - uniriotec.br
Consultor de Software Livre da Uniriotec Consultoria - uniriotec.com

Acadêmico: arlindo.pereira at uniriotec.br
Profissional: arlindo.pereira at uniriotec.com
Geral: contato at arlindopereira.com
Tel.: +5521 92504072
Jabber/Google Talk: nighto at nighto.net
Skype: nighto_sumomo
Chave pública: BD065DEC
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20090706/f6350bec/attachment.html>