Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: OSM (Open Street Map) Creative Commons Licence 2.5 (CCL) versus GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence)

[Jason Reid]

Nick Black wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been involved in some ongoing dialogue with Natural Resources,
> Government of Canada, who are keen for their National Road Network to
> be used by OSM.  There are a few particularities of the license that
> need clarifying on OSM's party. Natural Resources are happy that OSM's
> current cc-by-sa license is fully compatible with their own licensing.
>  I would appreciate input from the community here - do we agree with
> Natural Resources' interpretation of the license?  If not can we give
> them some constructive feedback regarding their own license?  If so,
> I'll move ahead with getting the data imported.
>
> See email below:
>
> Cheers,
>
>
>
>
>
>  --
>  Nick Black
>  
>  http://www.blacksworld.net
>
>
>
>   
Thanks for the update Nick. It's good to see some progress on this 
front, especially with 2 more provinces recently signing agreements that 
will place a much richer data set into Geobase later this year.

I'm not sure if you are aware or not but I had started on an initial 
tool to import the Geobase data last fall, its in the SVN at 
http://svn.openstreetmap.org/applications/utils/import/geobase2osm/. I 
had started developing and testing against the NRN 2.0 data (which 
currently exists only for P.E.I.), but it should work with a few 
adjustments for the base NRN data that they are providing currently.

If nobody has any qualms with the interpretation of the licenses it 
should be rather straight forward to move to the next step. We've 
recently started a talk-ca list for the Canadian users which would be a 
good place to start moving forward as there will be a number of places 
that the data that exists will be more thorough then geobase is, similar 
to what happened with TIGER in places.

-

 Jason Reid

 Web Technical Administrator
 Faculty of Social Sciences
 University of Calgary

 Social Sciences 515
 403-220-7903
- 


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: OSM (Open Street Map) Creative Commons Licence 2.5 (CCL) versus GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence)

[Robin Paulson]

On 08/04/2008, Nick Black <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
>  I've been involved in some ongoing dialogue with Natural Resources,
>  Government of Canada, who are keen for their National Road Network to
>  be used by OSM.  There are a few particularities of the license that
>  need clarifying on OSM's party. Natural Resources are happy that OSM's
>  current cc-by-sa license is fully compatible with their own licensing.
>   I would appreciate input from the community here - do we agree with
>  Natural Resources' interpretation of the license?  If not can we give
>  them some constructive feedback regarding their own license?  If so,
>  I'll move ahead with getting the data imported.

...

>  Date: Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:19 PM
>  Subject: RE: OSM (Open Street Map) Creative Commons Licence 2.5 (CCL)
>  versus GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence)



>   > You have expressed concerns about the 'compatibility' between the
>   > GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence) and the
>   > Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5 Licence (CCL) used for Open Street
>  Map (OSM).

have i missed something? i thought osm used "Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license" not "Creative Commons Share Alike
2.5 Licence"

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OpenStreetMap_License

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: OSM (Open Street Map) Creative Commons Licence 2.5 (CCL) versus GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence)

[Gervase Markham]

Robin Paulson wrote:
> have i missed something? i thought osm used "Creative Commons
> Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license" not "Creative Commons Share Alike
> 2.5 Licence"
> 
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/OpenStreetMap_License

I assume the name difference was just loose wording; all recent CC 
licences have included Attribution. It's no longer optional.

The version difference may be a significant error; I haven't looked at 
diffs.

Gerv

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] linz dataset for nz - attribution methods summary

[Robin Paulson]

On 08/04/2008, 80n <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > if we are going to have an 'attribution' page on the wiki[1], with the
> > > fine print regarding sources of various chunks of data, would a link
> > > to it be possible, on the main map page? titled say 'data attribution'
> > > or 'data sources'?
> >
> >  Have you got a definition of "main map page"?  If the cycle map

www.openstreetmap.org . the page with the map

> >  became more popular than the main site (generally, or in NZ) would
> >  the agreement you're after force its admins to add links?  Or on

well, osm don't control the cycle map (i think), but cc-by-sa says
they have to attribute the data sources, so yes, under the terms of
the license they have chosen to use, they must attribute.

> >  the other side, if you specify "on www.openstreetmap.org" what if
> >  the project renames?

this is very htpotthetical, but it doesn't really matter - the point
is to have a link to attribution data at the place where people
view/download/whatever the data. if the map page changes, the link
gets moved to the new map page

> Actually *every* published map that uses OSM data, including OSM's own maps
> must satisfy the attribution requirement.  That's what the BY clause in the
> CC-BY-SA means.
>
> Anyone publishing OSM data must provide attribution: "You must attribute the
> work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" is what Creative
> Commons actually says.  The attribution page on the wiki at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution would
> seem like a simple and convenient way of achieving this.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: OSM (Open Street Map) Creative Commons Licence 2.5 (CCL) versus GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence)

[Nick Black]

Hello,

I've been involved in some ongoing dialogue with Natural Resources,
Government of Canada, who are keen for their National Road Network to
be used by OSM.  There are a few particularities of the license that
need clarifying on OSM's party. Natural Resources are happy that OSM's
current cc-by-sa license is fully compatible with their own licensing.
 I would appreciate input from the community here - do we agree with
Natural Resources' interpretation of the license?  If not can we give
them some constructive feedback regarding their own license?  If so,
I'll move ahead with getting the data imported.

See email below:

Cheers,



-- Forwarded message --
From: Séguin, Claude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 8:19 PM
Subject: RE: OSM (Open Street Map) Creative Commons Licence 2.5 (CCL)
versus GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence)
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED],
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


Good day Mr Black,

 Any news or comments following or answers to questions in regards of
OSM Creative Commons Licence versus GeoBAse Unrestricted User
Licence??



 Claude Séguin
 Coordonnateur CITS Propriété Intellectuelle /CTIS Intellectual
property coordinator
 Centre d'information topographique (CITS) / Centre for Topographic
Information (CTIS)
 Ressources naturelles, Gouvernement du Canada / Natural Resources,
Government of Canada
 2144, rue King Ouest, bureau 010/2144, King Street West, suite 010,
 Sherbrooke, (Québec), J1J 2E8
 Téléphone/Phone: (819) 564-5600 poste/ext. : 231
 Courrier électronique/E-Mail : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Équipe soutien aux usagers/Customer support group
 1-800-661-2638 (Canada et É.-U.) / (Canada and U.S.)
 (819) 564-4857, Téléc. / Facsimile : (819) 564-5698
 [EMAIL PROTECTED] / [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
 www.cits.rncan.gc.ca / www.ctis.nrcan.gc.ca




 -Original Message-
 From: Nick Black [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Sent: 30 janvier, 2008 10:02
 To: Séguin, Claude
 Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
[EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]
 Subject: Re: OSM (Open Street Map) Creative Commons Licence 2.5 (CCL)
versus GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence)

 Séguin,

 Many thanks for answering some of the concerns that the OSM community
has about the license.  I've passed on your email to the relevant
people within the OpenStreetMap Foundation who I'm sure will be
contacting you shortly - we are all very keen to get the GeoBase data
into OSM.

 Best,



 On Jan 30, 2008 2:41 PM, Séguin, Claude <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > To:  Mr Nick Black
 >
 > Subject: 'Open Street Map Creative Commons Share Alike Licence'
 > versus compatibility of 'GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement'
 > National Road Network data
 >
 > You have expressed concerns about the 'compatibility' between the
 > GeoBase Unrestricted Use Licence Agreement (GeoBase licence) and the
 > Creative Commons Share Alike 2.5 Licence (CCL) used for Open Street
Map (OSM).
 >
 > This being a matter of concern for GeoBase, since the main reason for
 > GeoBase is to provide data accessible as possible to users at no cost
 > and closest to the source as possible.
 >
 > Following a review of the GeoBase license versus CCL for OSM users, we
 > do not see any constraints that would prevent OSM users from
 > downloading National Road Network (NRN)  or any other type of  data
 > from the GeoBase portal and to use this data.
 >
 > We have found that the GeoBase licence is in some respects more 'User
 > permissive' than the CCL.
 >
 >
 > We have provided some comments below that should be of some assistance to
 > you.   Please note that this is Not a Legal Opinion and should you have any
 > particular legal concerns in respect of your rights and obligations
 > under the GeoBase license or the CCL, please contact your legal
 > advisor for assistance.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > -1) Licence Grant (2.0)
 > In paragraph 2,  the agreement allows the Licensee to maintain IPRs
 > over any derivatives from the use of the data. This is also very
 > commendable, but not in the spirit of paragraph 1.
 >
 > Under section 2.1 of the GeoBase licence, the user receives broad
 > rights in respect of the data, such as the right to use, incorporate,
 > sublicense, modify, improve, further develop, distribute, manufacture
 > and distribute derivative products from the data.
 >
 > Under section 2.2, the intellectual property rights arising from any
 > modification, improvement, development, translation of data, or from
 > the manufacture of derivative products effected by or for the Licensee
 > will vest in the Licensee or in such person as the Licensee shall
 > decide.  It is up to the Licensee who made the modification or
 > improvement to the data to decide downstream distribution of its product.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > 2) Protection and acknowledgment of source (3.0)
 > - How would the sources be properly acknowledged?
 >

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Crown copyright, OS and year of publication

[Gervase Markham]

Andy Robinson (blackadder) wrote:
> It's interesting looking at the situation with some of the OS 1:25,000
> mapping. The vast majority of the maps I have do not state a copyright date,

For some jurisdictions and for some periods of time, failure to make an 
explicit copyright claim (or making an invalid claim) makes the 
copyright invalid. If you have such maps, you should check that out. (Of 
course, the Crown Copyright factor probably complicates things.)

Gerv

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[Gervase Markham]

Michael Collinson wrote:
> I echo Tom's sentiment that www.openstreetmap.org/Attribution 
>  would be a cleaner public 
> link to present if possible.

The shorter, the better (sometimes space is limited). So why not, with a 
small DNS change:

openstreetmap.org/credit

?

The www isn't needed if your DNS is set up right; everyone can see it's 
a web address anyway. And "credit" is shorter than "attribution".

Gerv

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Crown copyright, OS and year of publication

[Andy Robinson (blackadder)]

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
>Sent: 07 April 2008 5:09 PM
>To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Crown copyright, OS and year of publication
>
>Tim Sheerman-Chase wrote:
>
>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Out_of_copyright
>>
>> Is that interpretation about the FIRST year of publication definitely
>> correct? Or should it be the year of last update? Has this been
>> discussed before?
>
>The "FIRST" is pretty meaningless. The 1954 revision of a map was
>first published in 1954. The 1959 revision of a map was first
>published in 1959... and so on. All that means is that a simple
>reprint doesn't create a new copyright.
>
>Where the wiki page says:
>
>"Consider this actual example for OS 2.5" inch map NZ25 (edition code
>B/): "Made and published by the Director General of the Ordnance
>Survey, Chessington, 1954. Reprinted with corrections 1959". The date
>of first publication is by definition the stated date of publication
>and for this mapsheet is 1954 (not 1959, which indicates it is only a
>reprint made in 1959). Thus, for this mapsheet Crown Copyright will
>have expired at 24.00UTC December 31st 2004, even though it shows
>information correct as of 1959."
>
>...then I believe it's wrong. It's not "only a reprint" made in 1959,
>it's a "reprint with corrections", and if those corrections are
>substantial enough to be copyrightable, then a new copyright applies
>from 1959.
>
>The section in question was written by a contributor signing
>themselves "Geo" and with no other changes to the OSM wiki to their
>name.
>
>I'll update it.
>
>FWIW, I've always erred very much on the side of caution for the NPE
>scans, using 50 years after the last possible date as the cut-off.

It's interesting looking at the situation with some of the OS 1:25,000
mapping. The vast majority of the maps I have do not state a copyright date,
however I have some examples where an actual copyright date is present. To
give an example:
Sheet NY43 print edition B//* was compiled from 6" sheets last revised
1892-1923. Other partial systematic revision 1938-51 has been incorporated
and a "Crown copyright 1952" added. However additionally there is a note for
this print edition that states "Major roads revised 1972". This edition of
the map appears in the OS catalogue from 1973. Clearly therefore there is
precedent within the OS itself for not changing the copyright year when
making major road additions or adding an airfield etc. However the process
is not consistent. Mostly I note the "Crown copyright " only on maps
from around the 1970's.

As Richard says, if there is no actual copyright date I assume the relevant
date is the date of the last revision.

Of course, we could ask the OS for clarification. Perhaps that's something
that they would be obliged to do under Freedom of Information information?

Cheers

Andy

>
>cheers
>Richard
>
>___
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Crown copyright, OS and year of publication

[Richard Fairhurst]

Tim Sheerman-Chase wrote:

> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Out_of_copyright
>
> Is that interpretation about the FIRST year of publication definitely
> correct? Or should it be the year of last update? Has this been
> discussed before?

The "FIRST" is pretty meaningless. The 1954 revision of a map was  
first published in 1954. The 1959 revision of a map was first  
published in 1959... and so on. All that means is that a simple  
reprint doesn't create a new copyright.

Where the wiki page says:

"Consider this actual example for OS 2.5" inch map NZ25 (edition code  
B/): "Made and published by the Director General of the Ordnance  
Survey, Chessington, 1954. Reprinted with corrections 1959". The date  
of first publication is by definition the stated date of publication  
and for this mapsheet is 1954 (not 1959, which indicates it is only a  
reprint made in 1959). Thus, for this mapsheet Crown Copyright will  
have expired at 24.00UTC December 31st 2004, even though it shows  
information correct as of 1959."

...then I believe it's wrong. It's not "only a reprint" made in 1959,  
it's a "reprint with corrections", and if those corrections are  
substantial enough to be copyrightable, then a new copyright applies  
from 1959.

The section in question was written by a contributor signing  
themselves "Geo" and with no other changes to the OSM wiki to their  
name.

I'll update it.

FWIW, I've always erred very much on the side of caution for the NPE  
scans, using 50 years after the last possible date as the cut-off.

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Crown copyright, OS and year of publication

[Tim Sheerman-Chase]

Hi All,

On the wiki for out of copyright maps, it states:

> Maps published by the Ordnance Survey are Crown Copyright as 
> stipulated in the terms of The Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1998 
> (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1988/Ukpga_19880048_en_1.htm). 
> Therein, Chapter X. Section 163, states:
> *snip*
>
> (b) if the work is published commercially before the end of the period 
> of 75 years from the end of the calendar year in which it was made, 
> until the end of the period of 50 years from the end of the calendar 
> year in which it was first so published."
>
> Since most Ordnance Survey maps have been published and and are 
> classed as literary or artistic works produced by a government 
> organisation, not one indetifiable person, Crown Copyright on them 
> expires 50 years after the end of the calendar year in which a 
> mapsheet was FIRST published.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Out_of_copyright

Is that interpretation about the FIRST year of publication definitely 
correct? Or should it be the year of last update? Has this been 
discussed before?

If this is not correct, or it is uncertain, the wiki page should be updated.

Regards,

Tim


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[Iván Sánchez Ortega]

> I would prefer a url like attribution.openstreetmap.org or
> www.openstreetmap.org/attribution but it should still, IMHO, point to the
> same wiki page.

I agree with www.openstreetma.org/attribution ; however, I don't think
that wikifying the attribution would be a good idea.

Allowing every user to specify some license details through his/her user
page (much like the "make all my edits public" option), then hack the
rails code to show that data in /attribution on the main site, sounds like
a sane option.

-- 
Iván Sánchez Ortega <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

Un ordenador no es un televisor ni un microondas, es una herramienta
compleja.

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[Tom Hughes]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> I would certainly prefer that people using our data provide a link
>> to www.openstreetmap.org or the top level wiki index page as that
>> would do a better job of advertising our project to people that follow
>> the attribution link, which is surely the whole point of us wanting
>> attribution.
>
> The purpose of this is not advertisement of the OSM project.  It is so that
> users can comply with the terms of our license - users of our data have an
> obligation to provide attribution.

The point is that CC-BY-SA allows us to specify a URL that people 
must quote as attribution when using our work.

You are trying to use that requirement as a way to ensure that people
link to a page that passes on any nested attribution requirements that
come from data we import.

I would prefer to use that requirement as a way to advertise our
project to people that get works derived from our data.

Trying to achieve both aims is obviously the ultimate goal, but it
is not an easy thing to do.

As Richard says however, it's a bit silly to do anything now when the
license may be changing anyway.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.compton.nu/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[80n]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:47 PM, Frederik Ramm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Hallo,
>
> >I'd like to propose that we make the following statement:
>
> >"If you publish OpenStreetMap data you can satisfy the attribution
> >requirement of the license by linking to or referencing
> >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution";
>
> But you are aware of the fact that it is not this mailing list, or the
> foundation, or the majority of mappers, that can make such a statement
> - it would have to be made by every single licensor.
>

Yes, except that AFAIK nobody has yet requested or required any special
attribution, so they all have what they have asked for.

This statement *goes beyond* what existing contributors have asked for and
provides a way to satisfy other potential contributors, who do have specific
attribution needs.


>
> OpenStreetMap, as a project, is not in the legal position to take away
> the individual mapper's right to specify the kind of attribution *he*
> wants.
>

No, we can't take away, but this proposal adds.  We provide a place where
any contributor can add their attribution text, so we are enabling this
right by providing a way for contributors to specify the kind of attribution
they want.



>
> I'm not saying this is good, or your idea is bad, I'm just saying I
> think it is unworkable with the current license.
>

> Bye
> Frederik
>
> --
> Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[Richard Fairhurst]

Michael Collinson wrote:

> Other than that, well, I think we both share the same opinion that
> the current license is just unworkable full stop! :-)

There's probably not a lot of point making a big song and dance about  
attribution at present. In a month or two's time, when we're ready to  
vote on adopting the Open Database Licence, it'll become clearer.

cheers
Richard

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[Michael Collinson]

At 02:47 PM 4/7/2008, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Hallo,
>
> >I'd like to propose that we make the following statement:
>
> >"If you publish OpenStreetMap data you can satisfy the attribution
> >requirement of the license by linking to or referencing
> >http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution";
>
>But you are aware of the fact that it is not this mailing list, or the
>foundation, or the majority of mappers, that can make such a statement
>- it would have to be made by every single licensor.
>
>OpenStreetMap, as a project, is not in the legal position to take away
>the individual mapper's right to specify the kind of attribution *he*
>wants.
>
>I'm not saying this is good, or your idea is bad, I'm just saying I
>think it is unworkable with the current license.

Any individual licensor should have the right to add their own 
personal attribution to the same page *if* they choose and using 
wording they want. If that results in huge amounts of attributions, 
then we can use page as an A to Z or some such when the time comes.

That must be the nearest and only practical way of meeting "You must 
attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor 
(but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use 
of the work)."

Other than that, well, I think we both share the same opinion that 
the current license is just unworkable full stop! :-)

Mike



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[rob]

Quoting Michael Collinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:

> I echo Tom's sentiment that www.openstreetmap.org/Attribution would be
> a cleaner public link to present if possible.

You can request under BY-SA 2.0 that a URL be presented with the work.  
See BY-SA 2.0 section 4.c:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/legalcode

"If you distribute, publicly display, publicly perform, or publicly  
digitally perform the Work or any Derivative Works or Collective  
Works, You must keep intact all copyright notices for the Work and  
give the Original Author credit reasonable to the medium or means You  
are utilizing by conveying [...]; to the extent reasonably  
practicable, the Uniform Resource Identifier, if any, that Licensor  
specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not  
refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work;  
[...]"

Assuming attribution can be counted as part of the "licensing  
information" this could cover the attribution page.

- Rob.



___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[80n]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 1:40 PM, Tom Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> > Up to now there has not been any official guidance on how to comply with
> the
> > attribution clause of our CC-BY-SA license.   This means that people
> either
> > try to do something that they hope is acceptable or they do nothing.
>  Some
> > of OSM's own outputs fall into the latter category (for example, the API
> and
> > the planet dump) which sets a bad example for others.
> >
> > At the very least we should be providing advice and guidance on how
> users of
> > the data can comply with the attribution requirement when they publish
> OSM
> > data.
> >
> > I'd like to propose that we make the following statement:
> >
> > "If you publish OpenStreetMap data you can satisfy the attribution
> > requirement of the license by linking to or referencing
> > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution";
> >
> > Discuss.
>
> I understand the logic of using that URL in terms of wanting to
> comply with attribution requirements for any data we import (though
> personally I don't think it should be in the wiki for fairly obvious
> reasons) but in terms of making the attribution advertise our project
> that is not a good URL to use.
>

We need a place for contributors to be able to add their preferred/required
form of attribution text.  A page wiki makes that easy to maintain as anyone
who wants their own specific form of attribution can add their details
there.



>
> I would certainly prefer that people using our data provide a link
> to www.openstreetmap.org or the top level wiki index page as that
> would do a better job of advertising our project to people that follow
> the attribution link, which is surely the whole point of us wanting
> attribution.
>

The purpose of this is not advertisement of the OSM project.  It is so that
users can comply with the terms of our license - users of our data have an
obligation to provide attribution.

I would prefer a url like attribution.openstreetmap.org or
www.openstreetmap.org/attribution but it should still, IMHO, point to the
same wiki page.



> Tom
>
> --
> Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> http://www.compton.nu/
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[Frederik Ramm]

Hallo,

>I'd like to propose that we make the following statement:

>"If you publish OpenStreetMap data you can satisfy the attribution
>requirement of the license by linking to or referencing
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution";

But you are aware of the fact that it is not this mailing list, or the
foundation, or the majority of mappers, that can make such a statement
- it would have to be made by every single licensor.

OpenStreetMap, as a project, is not in the legal position to take away
the individual mapper's right to specify the kind of attribution *he*
wants.

I'm not saying this is good, or your idea is bad, I'm just saying I
think it is unworkable with the current license.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED]  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"


___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[Tom Hughes]

In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Up to now there has not been any official guidance on how to comply with the
> attribution clause of our CC-BY-SA license.   This means that people either
> try to do something that they hope is acceptable or they do nothing.  Some
> of OSM's own outputs fall into the latter category (for example, the API and
> the planet dump) which sets a bad example for others.
>
> At the very least we should be providing advice and guidance on how users of
> the data can comply with the attribution requirement when they publish OSM
> data.
>
> I'd like to propose that we make the following statement:
>
> "If you publish OpenStreetMap data you can satisfy the attribution
> requirement of the license by linking to or referencing
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution";
>
> Discuss.

I understand the logic of using that URL in terms of wanting to
comply with attribution requirements for any data we import (though
personally I don't think it should be in the wiki for fairly obvious
reasons) but in terms of making the attribution advertise our project
that is not a good URL to use.

I would certainly prefer that people using our data provide a link
to www.openstreetmap.org or the top level wiki index page as that
would do a better job of advertising our project to people that follow
the attribution link, which is surely the whole point of us wanting
attribution.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
http://www.compton.nu/

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[bvh]

On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 01:19:15PM +0100, 80n wrote:
> "If you publish OpenStreetMap data you can satisfy the attribution
> requirement of the license by linking to or referencing
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution";
> 
> Discuss.

+1.

cu bart

___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

[OSM-legal-talk] Attribution

[80n]

Up to now there has not been any official guidance on how to comply with the
attribution clause of our CC-BY-SA license.   This means that people either
try to do something that they hope is acceptable or they do nothing.  Some
of OSM's own outputs fall into the latter category (for example, the API and
the planet dump) which sets a bad example for others.

At the very least we should be providing advice and guidance on how users of
the data can comply with the attribution requirement when they publish OSM
data.

I'd like to propose that we make the following statement:

"If you publish OpenStreetMap data you can satisfy the attribution
requirement of the license by linking to or referencing
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution";

Discuss.

80n
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] linz dataset for nz - attribution methods summary

[80n]

On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Stephen Gower <
[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 08:48:18PM +1200, Robin Paulson wrote:
> >
> > if we are going to have an 'attribution' page on the wiki[1], with the
> > fine print regarding sources of various chunks of data, would a link
> > to it be possible, on the main map page? titled say 'data attribution'
> > or 'data sources'?
>
>   Have you got a definition of "main map page"?  If the cycle map
>  became more popular than the main site (generally, or in NZ) would
>  the agreement you're after force its admins to add links?  Or on
>  the other side, if you specify "on www.openstreetmap.org" what if
>  the project renames?
>

Actually *every* published map that uses OSM data, including OSM's own maps
must satisfy the attribution requirement.  That's what the BY clause in the
CC-BY-SA means.

Anyone publishing OSM data must provide attribution: "You must attribute the
work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" is what Creative
Commons actually says.  The attribution page on the wiki at
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/index.php/Attribution would seem like a simple
and convenient way of achieving this.

80n



>
>  s
>
> ___
> talk mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk