On 2018-03-07 09:08 PM, Steve Singer wrote:
> It is my understanding that the act of substitution is enough of a 
> change to require the LWG to need to look at it.

That's correct, Steve. I clarified the Ottawa import page a little:

> The OSMF Licensing Working Group determined in their meeting on
> 2017-03-02 that data under the Ottawa Open Data, Licence Version 2.0
> (Ottawa ODL 2.0) can be included in the OpenStreetMap dataset and
> distributed on ODbL 1.0 terms. Quoting from the draft minutes (draft
> link may not be generally readable):
>> The LWG has determined [(1)] that the attribution requirements of the
>> Ottawa ODL 2.0 can be met by adding the required text to the wiki
>> contributor page and corresponding changeset source attribute values,
>> and that there is no downstream attribution requirement, [(2)] that
>> we are not using "Personal Information" as defined in the licence and
>> referenced legislation, and that so licensed material can be included
>> in the OpenStreetMap dataset and distributed on ODbL 1.0 terms. —
>> OSMF LWG draft minutes, 2017-03-02
> Note: The LWG's acceptance of the Ottawa ODL 2.0 or the Canada Open
> Data Licence 2.0 does not mean that near-identical licences are also
> acceptable for OSM import. The draft minute goes on to say:
>> In the past the local variants of the OGL Canada have varied widely
>> and have in some cases included additional terms that have made them
>> incompatible with the ODbL and in some instances non-open. For this
>> reason we are not making a blanket statement on other such localised
>> versions of the OGL at this point in time and will continue to review
>> them on a case by case base.
> For example, if the fictional City of Rotonto took the exact text of
> the Ottawa ODL 2.0 and merely replaced instances of “Ottawa” with
> “Rotonto”, the above minute indicates that the Rotonto ODL would
> still need LWG approval.

I made a request to the LWG about this time last year about the Toronto
and Ontario licences, and they're still working on them.

There is another way around the issue: publish as CC-BY 4.0 (as some
Quebec municipalities have done) and supply OSM with one of these


Talk-ca mailing list

Reply via email to