I've just declined the new OSM Contributor Terms (CTs), because I've previously made edits based on OS OpenData, and my understanding is that the Ordnance Survey (OS) OpenData Licence is incompatible with the current version of the OSM Contributor Terms (1.2.4).
I appreciate that licence discussion really belongs on legal-talk, but I thought I should post this here about this UK-specific issue -- in order to prevent people signing up to the new CTs without realizing the potential incompatibility with OS OpenData-derived content. My reasoning for the incompatibility is as follows: The OS OpenData License [1] clearly states that any sub-licences must include a specific attribution requirement, and must also enforce a similar attribution requirement on any further downstream usage. However, clauses 2 and 3 of the OSM Contributor Terms [2] require mappers to grant particular rights to OSMF for future and past contributions. In particular, these rights are sufficient to give OSMF the ability to release contributions under a licence that need not require any attribution (it need only be "free and open"). There is no mention in the CTs of enforcing any attribution requirements in possible future OSM licences. (The facts that a vote of contributors are required for such a change, and that OSMF would clearly do their best to remove any infringing content before re-licensing are immaterial here. The right to distribute the data in the future with no attribution requirement is included in the rights grant required by clause 2, but this is not permitted under the terms of the OS OpenData Licence. There is a requirement in the CTs that OSMF will attribute sources, but no requirement for this to be passed on to downstream users by whatever licence OSM data is released under.) It is regrettable that OSMF is placing the burden of working out whether contributed data is compatible with the CTs and licences on individual volunteer mappers. So it's up to you to make your own decision on whether you're able to make the rights grant specified in CTs Clause 2, for any particular source. When you're reading the new terms and considering what to do, you may or may not come to the same conclusion I have done above with regards OS OpenData... As to where this might leave the use of OS OpenData in OSM if I'm right, I'm not sure. A recent post from an LWG member [3] suggests they'd like mappers to be able to use imports / derived content if they are compatible with the current licence as long as they don't overly burden future licence changes, but haven't figured out a formal mechanism for allowing it yet in the CTs. I think it is most unfortunate that OSMF are pushing ahead with these CT changes without clarity on the status of such imports in general, and OS OpenData-derived content in particular. OSMF/LWG are still waiting for a legal review of the OS OpenData licence and how it interacts with ODbL and the CTs. Nevertheless, it seems clear enough to me that OS OpenData is incompatible with the current CTs for the reasons outlined above. I am also unconvinced that the attribution requirements of the OS OpenData Licence are compatible with those of ODbL and DbCL, though that is debated by others. I think we'll have to wait for the outcome of the legal review, and to see if/how LWG will modify the CTs to allow OS OpenData-derived information to be contributed (if this turns out to be necessary and desirable). Robert. [1] http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendata/docs/os-opendata-licence.pdf [2] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms [3] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005964.html -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
