2017-11-02 1:57 GMT+01:00 Russ Garrett <[email protected]>: > > By asking the copyright owner to give OSM the right to re-license > their data as OSM sees fit, you're effectively asking them to release > it into the public domain.
no, this would only be true if OSM would change its license to PD, which is very unlikely. > By itself, this is a huge ask. "Explicit > authorization" isn't a license, and there must be a written license, > so we must be specific here. > it is a license (one party grants specific rights to another party). > > Working out derived works in a GIS seems to be a legal minefield in > itself - if you use ways which are imported from an ODbL-only source > to help align your own mapping, are you creating a derived work? > if you can't do your mapping without the ODbL source: likely yes > > My impression is that any opportunity for a relicensing event as > alluded to by the Contributor Terms has long since passed. I agree, although it might be different if you look at specific regions and not globally. > > I'm not sure if this even matters, though. The License FAQ [3] does > express reservations about importing data which could be removed by a > future license change. But we're talking about *building heights* here > - it would be simple to clearly identify the source of this data, and > it's highly unlikely that there would be any derived works created > from building heights. It's probably one of the most independent > pieces of data you could possibly import into OSM. > good point, well unless you organize the buildings and building parts according to this dataset. Cheers, Martin
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
