Graeme Wilford wrote on 09/06/2010 11:05: > All this talk about licensing and attribution caused me to question > the following: > > If I modify existing (or add new) OSM primatives using other > primatives as a guideline and the guiding primatives are attributed, > my changes might be considered derived works. Should the attribution > be inherited? > > To give a couple of simple examples; > - a building shape is added from, say OSSV and appropriately > attributed and then I move an existing POI (or apply a new one) on to > the building > - a lake is added from say, OSVM or an aerial survey and I draw a new > or re-align an existing footpath around the lake > > Any views? > > Thanks, > Wilf. > > m...@home > > http://facebook.com/gwilford > > > > It is the impracticalities of this that mean that there is a morally correct answer - which has the potential for you applying a source of local_knowledge;OSSV;survey;GPS to properly attribute the many things that you amalgamated in making the edit - or leaning on the licensing wording which talks of reasonableness a bit harder, where you consider only the major issues. I'd say aligning a footpath around a lake is really not depending on the source - you probably are not making a judgement as to accuracy and depending on it, you are making a cartographic judgement of a pragmatic nature rather than depending on the data - e.g. you have made a judgement that the footpath source is less reliable than OSSV in this case or you'd be hacking the lake not the footpath.
Legally, specifically thinking of OSSV, this is why it is important to resolve the fairly straightforward issue of the correct overall attribution. Either OSM accepts that it has content derived from OSSV and applies the minimal and reasonable attribution to the product, then the issue of individual attribution is not legal but interesting information for other editors to judge their edits against when making amendments (e.g. my source is local knowledge, I will defer to OSSV or not depending on, say, other landmarks); or alternatively OSM as a project refuses to acknowledge the use of OSSV etc. as a source, and the issue is void, as you cannot comply with the OS licence and any facilities to use OSSV should be stripped from the project. An end user is never aware of the individual attribution of a feature. If the project rejected OS data, with its most mild attribution requirements, along with a licence to use the derived data in any way in perpetuity, then I think it also starts having a problem with using out of copyright data, as it would really be saying that it is only interested in data collected through members' own efforts, and in that regard, using out of copyright OS maps seems little different to generously licensed OS data. Spenny _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
