On Tue, Jul 20, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) < [email protected] <robert.whittaker%[email protected]>> wrote:
> 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.) > > What's more, because Produced Works can be published under a restrictive license we couldn't get the additional data back by tracing either. ODbL + CT makes getting data back into OSM much harder than it is now by a massive degree. BTW, how would a corporation agree to the Contributor Terms anyway? The sign-up page only caters for individuals. Has, for example, CloudMade, agreed to the contributor terms yet and how could we tell if they had? 80n
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
