On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 8:25 PM, Grant Slater <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 16 September 2010 19:29, Dave F. <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 16/09/2010 16:43, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: > >> > >> If it isn't will this mean previous traced/imported Opendata will have > to > >> be removed? > >> If the incompatibilities in the licenses / CTs are not resolved before > >> the OSM license change goes ahead, then as far as I can see, the only > >> option would be to remove all OS OpenData derived mapping from OSM. > > > > This saddens me. > > > > I find it hard to conceive that members of OSM were lobbying the > > OS/Government to release data for public use, whilst at the same time (by > > the same people?) creating a new license that's incompatible with it. > > > > This clashes with the legal advice giving to the Licensing Working > Group in that OS OpenData's license _is_ compatible with ODbL and the > Contributor Terms. Specifically section 4 of the Contributor Terms > provides a mechanism for attribution. > Grant, who is giving you legal advice? Can you quote (or paraphrase) the advice you have been given please? > > I have asked Robert if he could share the email with the LWG, it would > be interesting to see the question asked and the full legal reasoning. > > Regards > Grant > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
