Richard wrote:
For those who are similarly humourously challenged may I point out that I
have checked and no, the OS
OpenData licence does not refer to pubic sector information. [...]
Oops! It may read as a sense of humour failure, but it was actually a
literacy failure. Maybe, therefore, take my reading of ODBL, OGL or
anything else, with a pinch of salt, but here goes...
No, it doesn't. Firstly, the only additional requirement is a downstream
attribution requirement, which is
already present in the ODC attribution licences. Secondly, the OS blog
posting expressly mentioned
becoming fully interoperable with ODC as a change from the previous
licence.
If we assume that the reading of ODBL in the LWG minutes is correct, then
ODBL would not require attribution of OSM's sources in produced works (e.g.,
maps), rather only attribution of the OSM database.
https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_87d3bmhxgc
(see 5.c)
It seems to me, the OS's added downstream attribution requirement says that
if person A creates a derived work, then person B's work derives from person
A's work, and person C's work derives from person B's work, then person B's
licence must still require person C to attribute the OS if they publish. Now
imagine this:
1. The OS has released OS Streetview under the OGL, modified with the
downstream attribution requirement.
2. Person A traces from OS Streetview and adds to OSM database, released
under ODBL (with its less stringent attribution requirements for produced
works).
3. Person B creates a produced work (map) from OSM.
4. Person C creates a work based on person B's work.
By the time we get to person C, the chain is completely broken (person B
does not have to include the requirement in their licence that person C
attributes the OS). This may not be a bad thing, but seems to contradict the
additional licence term the OS had added. Now, I realise that the OGL
specifically states it is compatible with ODC attribution licences, but that
surely means the OS licence has two contradictory terms. Logically only one
of them can apply in the situation above. Not sure why we can assume that
the term specifically added by the OS is the one that does not apply.
Or am I missing something? (Probably.)
I do take heart from the content of the blog post, but I think removing the
contradiction in the licence may be a sensible thing to request.
David
--
View this message in context:
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-CTs-and-the-1-April-deadline-tp5887879p5902118.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
