> > On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 9:05 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) > <robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: > > [...snip...] > > >> Maybe we should also start a >> campaign to ask them to dual license under ODbL+DbCL as well as >> CC-By... >> > Right, there's no way we can ever discuss this licensing without > getting one thing clear. The OS OpenData license is not CC-By 3.0 . > It's not any kind of creative commons license. I would advise anyone > who (mistakenly) thinks it is CC-BY to read the following licenses: > > http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode > > Notice how they involve different words in a different order. Notice > also that one contains the phrase "database rights" and the other does > not. The differences are significant in our context. > > So please, if anyone is going to make any comment on whether or not we > can use data licensed under the OS OpenData license lets please have > an accurate discussion based on the actual OS OpenData license. > > Cheers, > Andy > ...and what is interesting about the actual OS licence is that it is an open and generous licence in simple terms. It apparently only puts a single burden on the licensee, that is to properly acknowledge OS as a source in this and derived works. As a seperate issue, it also asserts that if you comply with their licence, then you have something that is aligned with CC-By 3.0. However, the terms of the OS are not bound to CC-By 3.0, so CC-By 3.0 licensing is a non-issue. Specifically, it is saying that as long as the OSM licence gives attribution to OS (and potentially the Royal Mail) and the OSM licence insists on that attibution to OS being maintained in derived works then there is not an issue. I struggle to see what is so difficult about the licensing.
It seems to my naive view, that for the sake of a blanket attribution to OS in OSM licence, there is not a problem. If the OSM project cannot meet this simple requirement - a single line of text, then it should not be using OS derived work in any form because it is not arguing from a legal standpoint, but some other ideological view of information rights. This has the potential to effectively claim the work as wholly its own when in fact contributors have relied on the work of others. It may be a small point, but it seems to me that OSM should have no problem with being honest and open about its origins and should not be claiming OSM is the work of its contributors when this is not really the case. Spenny _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
