On 12 December 2015 at 22:47, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
<robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If their legal people are genuinely happy for the ODbL level of
> attribution (particularly with respect to produced works), then it
> would make everyone's life much easier if they were able to dual
> licence the data under the ODbL in addition to CC-By. Then it's
> completely clear to everyone that use under the ODbL is acceptable,
> and there wouldn't be any need for lawyery discussions, special
> permissions, or user hesitation for particular uses. I guess there may
> be political and/or administrative barriers to prevent this, but it
> might be worth asking them if you haven't done so already.
It would be easier, but you and Tom are correct that this would be
hard. Hard because CC BY is the standard license which almost all are
using here and even more so because in their view there is nothing
wrong with CC BY.
> As far as use in OSM following the current correspondence goes, I
> think the key question is, are they aware that other people could then
> use the OSM data, and that with those uses they may only get indirect
> attribution -- i.e. the user links back to OSM, which would in turn
> link back to them -- even in cases where the data used was dominated
> by their data?
My interpretation of their view is yes that are aware that other
people could use OSM data and they may only get indirect attribution
and they are happy with this and believe this is okay as per the CC
license text.
However, not in the latter case if for instance all their data were to
be imported into OSM and then someone pulled only their data from OSM,
in such a case they believe end users would need to attribute them. I
suppose that could be of a concern, so I'll reply back with Tom's
suggested wording for clarification.
That said, the data they have released isn't raw data, it's only
imagery + raster basemaps, not sure if that makes a difference.
> It would therefore probably be safer if you could get
> an explicit statement that they're happy for the data to be used in
> OSM, rather than just that they're happy for the attribution that OSM
> provides for its own direct use.
I'm not a fan of that, because explicit permission for OSM to use such
data wouldn't extend to any other downstream organisations using such
data through OSM?
On 13 December 2015 at 02:46, Tom Lee <t...@mapbox.com> wrote:
> I agree that there's no harm in sending another email asking for assent to
> more specific terms. I've drafted some suggested language, to make this
> easy.
Thanks.
> Having recently spoken to a number of parties about Australia's open data
> push (specifically address data), including folks from the PM's office and
> the NSW government, I doubt the odds of a dual-licensing request meeting
> with success are very high. The national government is centralizing and
> standardizing its open data program, and it's clear that their default
> license will be CC-BY (or possibly a compatible national variant a la
> license ouverte).
Exactly my thoughts.
> Andrew has already found someone who feels comfortable offering
> clarifications and assurances regarding use and license interpretation;
> asking for relicensing is likely to require that she involve other parties,
> which could easily derail things. Still, I defer to his judgment about the
> best course.
>
> Suggested language follows:
>
> Thanks very much for your help with this matter. I think we understand one
> another, but for the sake of clarity, can you agree to the following three
> points?
>
> - OpenStreetMap (OSM) may use and incorporate NSW data and derived products
> into its database if attribution is provided as previously specified in this
> email chain
>
> - You understand that the OSM database into which the NSW data will be
> incorporated is presently licensed under the terms of the Open Database
> License (ODbL) version 1.0; and that it is possible for the project to
> update or change this license (though I should note that this has only
> happened once in the project's ten year history)
>
> - You understand that OSM data is reused by various third parties under the
> terms of the ODbL ("downstream use") and in ways that make attribution of
> all original data sources impossible; and you therefore agree that
> downstream use of OSM data including or derived from NSW data is not subject
> to the "reasonable" attribution requirements imposed by the NSW data's CC-BY
> license
I will reply back with that.
> Sorry to make this so formal, but I'm sure you can imagine the consequences
> for OpenStreetMap if we fail to make sure our data sources are legally
> compatible.
Agreed.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
