Hi Pekka,
Thanks for taking this on. I have put some comments in-line. The usual
caveat, IANAL!
Dear Friends,
This legal-lists seem to be quite quiet. So, maybe you all have plenty
of time to discuss about National Land Survey of Finland (NLSF)
license vs. OSM licenses.
As you may know, NLSF has released all their topographic information
for free use. Their license is open, more open than OSM (CC-BY-SA or
ODbL). I think. You can read NLSF's license terms:
http://www.maanmittauslaitos.fi/en/NLS_open_data_licence_version1_20120501
It seems that quite OSMers in Finland like to benefit NLSF data sets.
We have good discussion going on about imports, background
map/imagery usage etc. Mainly discussions will be in Finnish on IRC,
forums and mailing lists.
Now we have also some legal questions and I'd like to hear your comments:
· Is NLSF Open Data license compatible with OSM current and new license?
There is a problem wíth 2.2 require third parties to provide the same
information when granting rights to copies of dataset(s) or products and
services containing such data and
This should be theoretically OK under CC-BY-SA but does imply that any
user of OSM data is going to have to check whether it contains it
contains NLSF data and attribute, even on a map. The impracticability of
this was a major reason for moving away from CC-BY-SA.
ODbL does not force map makers to attribute each and every contributor.
This is by design but would violate this NLSF requirement. We had the
same problem with the Ordnance Survey in the UK. I can email you the
text that I sent them to explain the issue.
· If we import NLSF data, we need to add link to their license into
http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright/en. Right?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution is the official place.
Merging the two together in some way is an LWG TODO.
· Contributors: we need to add NLSF to this page:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution. Is there any format
what they should answer? Should this demand come from OSMF or can I do it?
You can do it. The attribution given to the Ordance Survey can be used
as a template.
· NLSF terms of use, section 2.2 last bullet:
/...remove the name of the Licensor from the product or service, if
required to do so by the Licensor
/Some people think that this is barrier and OSM license won't accept
this. Personally I don't see any problems with this. If we import NLSF
data to OSM (and we have mentions in wiki about their copyright etc.)
and in the future NLSF demands to remove their name, we can remove it
from wiki pages. We don't include NLSF name in every single copy
(digital and/or analog) and we don't clear NLSF names from OSM copies.
I agree with you. The English version unambiguously talks about
removing the name of the Licensor, not the data of the Licensor.
Easy enough.
Mike
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask in the list or
directly. I also promise to act as contact person between OSM and
NLSF, there is already some confusion and I will make separate email
about that.
Rgs,
Pekka
--
Pekka Sarkola
Gispo Oy
pekka.sark...@gispo.fi mailto:pekka.sark...@gispo.fi - GSM +358
40 725 2042
www.gispo.fi http://www.gispo.fi -- www.paikkatieto.com
http://www.paikkatieto.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
