[OSM-talk] OpenStreetMap License Change Phase 3 Pre-Announcement

[Ed Avis]

Ed Avis <eda <at> waniasset.com> writes:

>>"[...] if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice
>>associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any
>>Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise
>>exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the
>>Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a
>>Collective Database, and that it is available under this License"
>
>So you must provide attribution, but you don't have to enforce that
>downstream users of the Produced Work have to keep the attribution.
>(That seems sensible enough to me personally.)

To answer my own question - I guess that 'reasonably calculated to make...'
suggests you should include an attribution notice and ask downstream users to
respect it - although it doesn't mandate any particular choice of licence.
So we would still have the attribution requirement as now.

To return again to the possible infringements of the OSM licence - in the cases
where currently OSM tiles are being used without attribution, I can't see any
reason why requiring or enforcing attribution would become easier under the ODbL
rather than the current licence.  I don't think we've had any infringer send us
a letter from their legal department saying that "copyright doesn't apply, so
nyah nyah".  Nor have we ever (AFAIK) sent a menacing notice from our own
lawyers (employed by OSMF or by mappers).  I think it's a human problem, not a
legalese problem.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>