Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

[Tom Lee]

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.

On Wed, Dec 9, 2015 at 7:36 PM, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> We've received some correspondence from a state government department
> regarding the use of their CC BY 3.0 AU licensed data and imagery
> within OpenStreetMap.
>
> One OSM member initially received the response:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/New_South_Wales_Government_Data#Cleary.27s_Letter
>
> I then followed up about some ambiguous sections of the text and
> received this response:
>
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/New_South_Wales_Government_Data#Andrew.27s_Letter
>
> Would this be sufficiently legally binding and legally solid to allow
> us to include their CC BY 3.0 AU licensed data, derivative data and
> information derived from their imagery within OSM?
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] NSW LPI permission

[Andrew Harvey]

On 12 December 2015 at 04:11, Tom Lee  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