Ed Avis <eda <at> waniasset.com> writes: >>"[...] if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice >>associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any >>Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise >>exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the >>Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a >>Collective Database, and that it is available under this License" > >So you must provide attribution, but you don't have to enforce that >downstream users of the Produced Work have to keep the attribution. >(That seems sensible enough to me personally.)
To answer my own question - I guess that 'reasonably calculated to make...' suggests you should include an attribution notice and ask downstream users to respect it - although it doesn't mandate any particular choice of licence. So we would still have the attribution requirement as now. To return again to the possible infringements of the OSM licence - in the cases where currently OSM tiles are being used without attribution, I can't see any reason why requiring or enforcing attribution would become easier under the ODbL rather than the current licence. I don't think we've had any infringer send us a letter from their legal department saying that "copyright doesn't apply, so nyah nyah". Nor have we ever (AFAIK) sent a menacing notice from our own lawyers (employed by OSMF or by mappers). I think it's a human problem, not a legalese problem. -- Ed Avis <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
