On 16 June 2011 17:50, Michael Collinson <[email protected]> wrote: > Here is as much information as I can give. It is not conclusive so I would > summarise by saying that I *personally* (great emphasis!) have some > contributions derived from OS StreetView data and have accepted the new > terms without qualms. I explain my reasons below and what I intend to do. I > hope they help you make up your own mind either way if you are in a similar > situation.
Thank you for this, but I believe it only addresses half of the issue, namely whether OS OpenData can be distributed under ODbL. The other half is whether OS OpenData is compatible with the OSM Contributor Terms. If I've understood things correctly, the CTs (in particular Clause 2) go further than ODbL compatibility, and require you to have additional rights to grant to OSMF on your contributions. My reading of clause 2 is that it requires your contributions to be able to be distributed under any "free and open" license. Some have disputed this view, claiming that the intent of the CTs is only that you must warrant that your data is compatible with the current licenses. Can you confirm LWG's position on this, and if it's been subject to legal review? Can you also confirm whether or not the legal review of Os OpenData also looked at the compatibility of OS OpenData with clause 2 of the OSM Contributor Terms? I've provided reasoning at http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Robert%20Whittaker as to why I believe the two are not compatible. I've yet to see any argument to explain why my reasoning there is incorrect. Given that I've made use of OS OpenData in the past, I could probably be persuaded to sign the CTs based on the requirements of clause 1 (ODbL compatibility), but not with the additional requirements of clause 2. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable in my view that individual mappers are being forced to make complicated legal decisions like this, when even the LWG is not prepared to do so officially. Unless you want to postpone the move to phase 4 or have another solution, I would suggest that you must amend the CTs to provide an explicit exemption from clauses 1 and 2 for any IP connected with OS OpenData. This way, everyone could happily sign the CTs, and OSMF/LWG can sort out the legal issues surrounding whether or not they are able to distribute OS OpenData derived content at their leisure. LWG should also issue firm guidance on whether or not CT-accepted mappers may continue to use OS OpenData until these issues are resolved. Regards, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
