On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Grant Slater <[email protected]>wrote:
> On 15 September 2010 23:46, John Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 16 September 2010 08:38, Richard Weait <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Sure. Aren't there AU gov't sources that would be nice to have > >> permission to use? > > > > You keep seeming trying to divert attention from the major issue, the > > CTs won't allow anything other than PD data, almost no AU govt will > > accept anything less than guaranteed attribution, the 2 goals are > > completely in conflict. > > > > Point 4 of the Contributor Terms provides a guaranteed mechanism for > Attribution. > http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms > Is the ODbL attribution viral? For produced works the only requirement is to include the following text: Contains information from DATABASE NAME, which is made available > here under the Open Database License (ODbL). > How does this constrain a recipient of the produced work to keep the attribution intact? It's not a license for the recipient and if the produced work was published as PD, for example, then the recipient can do whatever they like. I don't understand how that binds the recipient or even how that satisfies the claim in the CTs that "OSMF agrees to attribute You". Can you explain please? 80n > > Regards > Grant > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
