On 12 December 2015 at 04:11, Tom Lee <t...@mapbox.com> wrote: > Andrew, I am not a member of the LWG, but insofar as: > > - questions regarding CC-BY 3.0's compatibility with ODbL hinge on the > impracticality of downstream compliance with the license's attribution > requirements in a geo context > - the rightsholder has made it clear that they understand downstream > attribution requirements to be unreasonable in many cases, and don't believe > the obligation should apply in those cases > - the rightsholder has made it clear what attribution they wish to receive, > and it's obviously within OSM's power to comply with those wishes > > I think this looks like a pretty good chance to incorporate some valuable > open data.
Thanks for your thoughts. I came to those exact same conclusions also, so it's reassuring that you have too. I've added the base layers as defaults for the editors and from the talk-au thread, people are using this data now. Talking with their legal people it was, or at least as far as I understood them, their view that the the ODbL style of attribution (where downstream don't need to provide attribution for any incorporated or derived datasets) is fine within the bounds of the CC BY 3.0 AU license already. They mentioned that the CC license has a concept of attribution reasonable or appropriate for the medium which covered this use case. They also mentioned that when their CC BY 3.0 AU data is incorporated into a new work (which is more than just a trivial transformation) then there is no need for downstream attribution within the license. In a way they are merely letting us know of their interpretation of the license that it's terms already meet our requirements. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
