[OSM-talk] OpenBuildingModels repository

Tobias Knerr osm at tobias-knerr.de
Fri Aug 10 18:50:58 BST 2012

On 03.08.2012 13:51, Matthias wrote:
> Tobias Knerr:
>> In my opinion, it would be more future-proof to define legal terms for
>> your repository that would always at least allow the models to be used
>> under the same license as the one used by OSM at that point in time. An
>> appropriate legal arrangement would have to be found, but I think that
>> this would be an important effort.
> OK, maybe I got something wrong here. I chose ODbL because I thought
> that it is the new OSM license?! Admittedly, I don't know much about the
> recent license change and might have confused something.

The license change was made possible by the adoption of the Contributor
Terms, which grant the OSMF the right to publish OSM data under
CC-BY-SA, ODbL, "or such other free and open licence [...] as may from
time to time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by
at least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors".

So, basically, we can adopt a different license at any point in the
future without losing existing data. And if that ever happens, it would
imo be important that the content on OpenBuildingModels remains legally
compatible with OSM.

> But in general I get your point, that the license should always "be the
> same as OSM". I don't know, though, how to formulate that properly in
> the licensing terms. If you know more about this, you could maybe
> suggest a concrete licensing text.

I could write something, but unfortunately, I'm not a legal expert
either. Maybe it would be a good idea to continue this discussion on
legal-talk? This question might even be of general interest because it
is somewhat relevant for any "sister databases" that connect with OSM.

So if it is ok with you, I'll post a question about this on legal-talk.
Or you can do it yourself, of course.


More information about the talk mailing list