On 16 June 2011 14:48, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com> wrote: That it was drafted, carefully, by a lawyer I do not doubt. But lawyers draft things on instruction to achieve particular goals. My understanding from Ben's comment is that one of the goals of nearmap is that derived works are distributed only under CC-BY-SA. The second paragraph does that job well as far as I can see and prevents OSM from relicensing nearmap data under ODbL.
The goal of that statement was to allow any contributions that have been derived from our PhotoMaps under our current licence (which is what imposes the CC-BY-SA redistribution condition) can remain in the OSM db. Not being a lawyer, I'm not going to comment on how the statement may or may not achieve that; I'm not qualified to interpret it. All I can do is make it clear that it was drafted to explicitly allow derived data to stay in the database. I've seen the background correspondence about it, and I know the lawyers involved were well aware of the CTs, the OdBL, the future licence terms, etc, when they drafted it. On 16 June 2011 17:02, Elizabeth Dodd <ed...@billiau.net> wrote: Ben, thanks for the offer, but worded as it is I still don't find that compatible with OSMF's terms and conditions. Well, a bunch of people here put real effort into finding a way to avoid large amounts of NearMap-derived data being deleted by addressing the licence incompatibility, but we are all busy with many tasks that have to be given a higher priority than this, so I doubt very much that there can be any more legal work done on our side to clarify this further. I'm sure that there could be a long and detailed discussion on whether the statement achieves that but I say again: that's exactly what it was intended to achive and it was written by our lawyers to do just that. :) Regards Ben
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au