Am I the only person observing this conversation on the mailing list who is deeply, deeply concerned by the notion of importing data that requires attribution other than the standard OSM CC-by-SA? The fact that whenever we display NZ we would have to display "crown copyright" somewhere totally undermines the purpose of the CC-by-SA licence - to make sure people know that the data is freely available.
As an outsider to the project, I would see "crown copyright" and immediately assume that I was not able to do what I want with the data. It will cause confusion because it's the same copyright notice displayed on OS maps, even if the license is different. If people see "crown copyright" I think it could also make people less likely to contribute to OSM in the future because it causes confusion over the idea that OSM is mainly user-generated. Perhaps I just object to having to put "crown copyright" on all the maps that show NZ because it just seems like someone else retains ownership of OSM data. I feel that's against the very ethos of OSM. I think it is preferable to make our own dataset of NZ than to undermine the very idea of OSM. We've done it for lots of other countries, and it will get done eventually. Let's not ruin the whole project for the sake of taking a short cut! Once we import copyrighted data we can't go back very easily. This step shouldn't be taken lightly. David > On 02/04/2008, Chris Hill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > This extra set of steps for the Linz data seems a > step too far for me. I'm especially concerned about > the the fact that they insist on the phrase 'Crown > Copyright reserved' - they are surely maintaining NZ > Crown Copyright over the data. This is exactly what > I thought OSM was seeking to avoid. > > > > not exactly - this info from the linz website sheds > some light: > > http://www.linz.govt.nz/home/disclaimer/index.html > "Crown Copyright > > Land Information New Zealand owns the Crown > copyright in the material > available for viewing or downloading from this > website as provided in > the Copyright Act 1994. > > The material may be used, copied and re-distributed > free of charge in > any format or media. Where the material is > redistributed to others the > source and copyright status must be acknowledged." > > i.e. we and subsequent users are given explicit > permission to > re-distribute and edit it as much as we like, so > long as we say who > created it. > > which sounds exactly like cc-by-sa under a different > name: > > http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ > > "You are free: > * to Share ? to copy, distribute and transmit > the work > * to Remix ? to adapt the work > > Under the following conditions: > * Attribution. You must attribute the work in > the manner > specified by the author or licensor (but not in any > way that suggests > that they endorse you or your use of the work). > * Share Alike. If you alter, transform, or > build upon this work, > you may distribute the resulting work only under the > same or similar > license to this one. > * For any reuse or distribution, you must make > clear to others the > license terms of this work. The best way to do this > is with a link to > this web page." > > they assert copyright, but are agreeing not to wield > it in any way > that is bad to us > > the entire question i am asking here revolves around > "Where the material is redistributed to others the > source and > copyright status must be acknowledged." > and us finding a method for doing that, which we and > linz are happy with > > > > cheers, Chris __________________________________________________________ Sent from Yahoo! Mail. A Smarter Inbox http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/talk
