Hi Bjenk, > Most participants here agree that open data initiatives exist so that > we, the public, organizations including OSM, everyone can use the > data.
The OSM project can't accept data that might have hidden licensing issues that might jeopardize OSM's existence. All new licenses are treated with extreme caution. From the Legal FAQ: “XYZ Organisation has data for free download under licence N. Can I use it in OSM? Approach the data owners, explain OSM, and seek written permission to licence their data under our licence and contributor terms. Unless the data is genuinely offered without any restrictions on use at all (i.e. public domain), please contact the Licensing Working Group for advice. Do not rely on your own legal interpretation of the licence. OSM is all about creating a freely and easily redistributable data set. Anything which taints the dataset or exposes OSM to possible legal action interferes with that objective. Even if you only want to use a minor part, or compare the sources, you should still seek approval in writing. The legal principles involved are not well developed, and the OSM community wants to develop a free and untainted dataset and not test any of the legal issues involved here. In short: be ultra-cautious” <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#2b._XYZ_Organisation_has_data_for_free_download_under_licence_N._Can_I_use_it_in_OSM.3F> > With that said, It has not yet been clearly explained what are the > issues nor the sources raising concerns. Many have asked for > clarifications and these have not been presented. These responses take time. We're all volunteers who do this for fun. I've (just) requested clarification from the OSMF License Working group. I don't know if anyone had before. To OSM, the Ottawa licence is different from the Federal OGL, so it needs looked at. Stewart _______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
