Re: [Talk-ca] Open Government Licence

[Steve Singer]

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013, Paul Norman wrote:


From: Matthew Buchanan [mailto:matthew.ian.bucha...@gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2013 3:59 PM
To: OSM Talk-ca
Subject: [Talk-ca] Open Government Licence

Is this good news for OSM?


I'll be doing a full analysis later, but I believe the license is
currently incompatible with OSM because of a drafting error on the
cities' part.


Is this a drafting error on Vancouver's part or is the error in
the Open Government license text that all these governments are using as 
their template? (http://data.gc.ca/eng/open-government-licence-canada ?)





Acknowledge the source of the Information by including any
attribution statement specified by the Information Provider(s)
and, where possible, provide a link to this licence.



If the Information Provider does not provide a specific
attribution statement, or if you are using Information from
several Information Providers and multiple attributions are
not practical for your product or application, you must use
the following attribution statement:

Contains information licensed under the Open Government Licence -

Vancouver.

It also defines Information Provider as the The City of Vancouver

OSM can only guarantee attribution in accordance with 4.2 of the
ODbL. This would be okay with the attribution required for
several Information Providers except that the only Information
Provider is the The City of Vancouver, and as there is only one
City of Vancouver, there is never a scenario where there are
multiple Information Providers.


Wouldn't the  multiple Information Providers kick is as soon as you 
combined data from Vancouver with any other source such as the existing OSM 
database?






___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca




___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

[Talk-ca] Ville de New-York, pourquoi pas ici ?

[Nicolas Gignac]

Bonjour,

Pouvez-vous me dire comment on ne peut pas faire de même avec les données
ouvertes du Québec (www.donnees.gouv.qc.ca) et du Canada (ex. GéoBase,
CanVec) comme le fait la ville de New-York et OSM :
http://www.mapbox.com/blog/nyc-and-openstreetmap-cooperating-through-open-data/#
!
Les données ouvertes de New-York dans OSM, ces mêmes données modifiées OSM
sont transférées à la ville de NY, pourquoi eux n'ont pas de problème de
licence et ont pu former un partenariat durable ? Ce projet de détection de
changement serait sûrement intéressant à faire ici (il a déjà eu un projet
au fédéral de ce type il me semble). Est-ce que c'est un partenariat
officiel entre OSM et les organismes publics qui doit être fait pour
construire un tel projet complet de collaboration qui inclut une synergie
autant les données ouvertes, la plate-forme OSM, les organismes publics,
l'entreprise privée et les citoyens ?

Au plaisir,

Nicolas
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Open Government Licence

[Paul Norman]

 From: Steve Singer [mailto:st...@ssinger.info]
 Cc: 'Matthew Buchanan'; talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
 Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Open Government Licence
 
 Wouldn't the  multiple Information Providers kick is as soon as you
 combined data from Vancouver with any other source such as the existing
 OSM database?

No. OpenStreetMap is not The City of Vancouver and therefore not an 
Information Provider as defined in the license.


___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca