Emilie Laffray <[email protected]> wrote: > The second point is that I don't see the relation between knowing how much > OS OpenData and the switch to the new licence. Talks of losing data is > partially a self fulfilling prophecy. It is impossible right now to gauge > how much data IF ANY we would lose since we don't have any means to know who > is in support of what until the voluntary licence is put in place.
The last I heard (albeit informally) from OS is that they're worried about the lack of formal attribution requirements on Produced Works under ODbL. It's also unclear whether they would agree to DbCL for individual data items. From the first point alone, I don't think it's safe to conclude that their current license would allow their data to be used in an ODbL database, although I'd be hopeful that they could be persuaded to agree to a license that allows this. More importantly though, the current contributor terms [1] (in particular clauses 2 and 3) require mappers to grant certain rights to their data to OSMF, which in particular would allow OSMF to re-license the data without the Share-Alike or Attribution requirements if that's what the community voted for. I can't see OS ever agreeing to this, as it would mean they could loose their attribution requirements. So, unless those contributor terms are amended / removed, or there's an exception for certain data providers, we will have to loose any OS OpenData derived information from the database, by either deleting objects or reverting them to a prior state. Until this issue is resolved, I'd suggest not investing any time in adding anything further derived from OS OpenData. (Personally, I think those clauses in the contributor terms need to be removed entirely, as (a) it's unreasonable to expect people to agree to the use of their data under an as-yet-unspecified license, and (b) the terms provide a loop-hole that would prevent us from benefiting from the Share-Alike provisions of ODbL -- A third-party can take our data, do some cool stuff with it, add some of their own data, and release the result under ODbL to fulfil their SA responsibilities. There's nothing to force them to agree to our contributor terms, and by not doing so, they'd prevent OSM from using their combined dataset. This renders the SA provisions all but useless for us.) Robert. [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
