This conversation is quite scattered now but, I've followed up with contact given in your letter (Diana Stewart) with my concerns and questions. Specifically I've asked:
1. what does the statement "Where specific licence terms (such as Creative > Commons) are applied to datasets, those licence terms shall prevail over > any inconsistent provisions in this statement." mean? Because we need these > additional permissions from LPI beyond the scope of the CC license to be > legally binding so that we may use LPI data within OpenStreetMap. We need > this additional permissions from LPI to prevail over the problematic > clauses within the CC license. > > 2. "To ensure consumers are informed of the currency and accuracy of data, > LPI asks that the date of extraction be marked in red." This requirement is > difficult to implement for us due to the way we would like to use LPI data, > furthermore if implemented it would be misleading. If the OpenStreetMap > community were to include LPI data or derived data within OpenStreetMap > then this would be an ongoing adhoc inclusion of pieces of LPI data. As > such, any single statement intending to indicated data currency wouldn't be > accurate. > > 3. Could you please clarify that "on the 'Contributors' page of > OpenStreetMap" refers to > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australia and not > https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright > I've asked this in the context of my pretext: I am of the understanding that as it currently stands the Creative Commons > Attribution 3.0 Australia license ( > https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode) isn't > compatible with the terms we (OpenStreetMap) need for inclusion of such > data or derived data in OpenStreetMap. > > For example the above CC license in clauses 4A(b),4A(e),4B(a) certain > notices must be kept intact when we create new works derived from your CC > licensed LPI data. However, OpenStreetMap has decided that this level of > downstream attribution is too onerous (so for example if OpenStreetMap > included some data from LPI and a 3rd party web site includes an > OpenStreetMap map, that website shouldn't need to attribute LPI, rather > they would only attribute OpenStreetMap and in tern OpenStreetMap would > attribute LPI). > > Because of this, OpenStreetMap require specific explicit permission from > the copyright owner that such method of attribution is acceptable since it > is unclear if this is acceptable under the plan CC BY 3.0 AU license. > > Furthermore clause 4B(c) requires identification of changes made to the > original work. This isn't practical for OpenStreetMap so we require that > copyright holders grant us that we may simply state something such as "in > part derived from...". > I want to make sure that we have solid legal foundations for this, and would like to run it by the legal-talk list first for advice.
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au