http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/GettingPermission#Letter_Template3 would seem to be the most complete version of "how we really would like you to release data to us".
It is not really a surprise that OSM requires a special case, it is simply due to OSM actually being a special case and essentially being the only project that digests open data and produces such with the downstream end user very often multiple tiers away. Most other data consumers (the goog and so on) typically have complete. or at least tight. control over the end product and wont have issues with complicated attribution requirements and other restrictive terms. Outside of specific terms for OSM, currently, IMHO, organisations wanting to release data on open licence terms don't really have many good options. They will typically gyrate to CC by licences even though 2.0 and 3.0 don't really work for data (which is likely why commercial users are such a fan of them) and 4.0 is a total rewrite which raises some questions with respect to use as a data licence that remain unanswered. If it was up to me I would suggest http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1.0/ , however it is not clear if the authors are still interested at all in any of the O* licences. Simon PS: what is HDX, besides being CHJ (cool humanitarian jargon)? Am 19.03.2016 um 18:52 schrieb Dale Kunce: > > I'm very curious about the cc-by compatibility. The Red Cross is doing > a very large mapping project in West Africa, ground truthing a lot of > the data created by remote mappers during ebola. As part of the > project we want to release the data both in OSM and in a more complete > form (not all data gathered is appropriate for osm) on HDX. Our > original thinking was to double license the data, Cc-by 4.0 for HDX > with an explicit license for OSM. > > What is the best route for organizations to do something like this. > From this thread I can see the need for a checklist or at the very > minimum a wiki page with sample language. Forgive me if this already > exist I haven't found anything online yet. > > Dale > > On Mar 18, 2016 9:58 PM, "Simon Poole" <si...@poole.ch > <mailto:si...@poole.ch>> wrote: > > Diane > > Any comment from CC on the -other- issues that have been raised > wrt CC by 4.0 and ODbL compatibility and in general with the way > it works for databases? > > Simon > > Am 18.03.2016 um 17:19 schrieb Diane Peters: >> Just to be clear on the attribution removal requirement in CC's >> licenses, Erik asserted: >> >> I wish people would stop releasing data with CC-by; "you have to >> attribute us, but you have to remove that attribution when ever we >> want you too" which is not present in ODbL so.... >> >> There is no such absolute obligation. In 4.0, the removal >> requirement provides: "If requested by the Licensor, You must >> remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) >> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/legalcode#s3a1A> to the >> extent reasonably practicable." (Sec. 3a3 >> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode>). And in >> 3.0, it's "to the extent practicable", which from a CC >> perspective is functionally the equivalent (Sec. 4a >> <http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode>). >> >> Diane >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Tom Lee <t...@mapbox.com >> <mailto:t...@mapbox.com>> wrote: >> >> Tobias, the best option for ensuring the data is usable by >> OSM is an explicit statement of permission for the >> OpenStreetMap project to incorporate and use the data under >> the project's terms. This is generally considered preferable >> to a dataset that is ODbL-licensed without such a statement. >> >> However, I would encourage you to consider non-OSM users as >> well when choosing the license. ODbL is not widely used >> outside of OSM. A license like CC-BY 4.0 is more widely used >> and actively maintained. Choosing it would ensure >> compatibility with a large number of non-OSM datasets. And if >> paired with a permission statement like what's described >> above, OSM could still use the data without any license >> compatibility worries. >> >> Of course, if you can do without attribution, you might >> consider something even more simple that disclaims liability >> but imposes no other terms. If that's an option let me know >> and I can turn up some examples. >> >> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Erik Johansson >> <erjo...@gmail.com <mailto:erjo...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Tobias Wendorff >> <tobias.wendo...@tu-dortmund.de >> <mailto:tobias.wendo...@tu-dortmund.de>> wrote: >> > Dear list, >> > >> > could you please recommend me licenses for releasing >> data to ODbL? >> > From my point of view, compatible licenses are >> CC-license without >> > "SA" and "BY" and (only if possible) CC0 and PD or >> finally special >> > license, like the following one: >> > >> > Some crporations like "Deutsche Bahn" (the biggest rail >> corporation >> > in Germany) has released their data under CC BY 4.0 >> with a special text >> > for OpenStreetMap (roughly translated): >> > >> > "If the data of Deutsche Bahn is part of the >> OpenStreetMap database work, >> > a reference to the Deutsche Bahn AG in the list of >> contributors is enough. >> > Crediting DB at each use of the data by a licensee of >> the mentioned database >> > work is no longer necessary then. Indirect credits >> (with reference to the >> > publisher of this databse work, which refers to the DB) >> is sufficient." >> > >> > Actually, that's a kind of dual-licensing with a >> special license for OSM. >> > From my understanding, releasing data ODbL would be the >> worst thing, >> > since the "BY" attribution of the data donator isn't >> compatible, is it? >> >> >> I've choosen not to start on a couple of imports because >> of the CC-by >> issue, I've gotten ok from the owners but they want to be >> included on >> http://osm.org/contributors . Deutsche Bahn seems to be >> much more >> free, I interpret it as source=Deutsche Bahn seems to be >> enough. >> >> >> I wish people would stop releasing data with CC-by; "you >> have to >> attribute us, but you have to remove that attribution >> when ever we >> want you too" which is not present in ODbL so.... >> >> >> >> -- >> /emj >> >> _______________________________________________ >> legal-talk mailing list >> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >> <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> legal-talk mailing list >> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >> <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> legal-talk mailing list >> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
