Jump to: content, navigation, search

Navigation menu

Licence/Licence and Legal FAQ: Difference between revisions

Licence/Licence and Legal FAQ (view source)

Revision as of 13:03, 26 September 2009

847 bytes removed ,  14 years ago
update
No edit summary
(update)
=The OpenStreetMap License=
 
The OpenStreetMap project is proposing to move to a new license, known as the '''Open Database License (ODbL)''' which would replace the existing CCBYSA license due to [[Open Data License FAQ|problems]] with the CCBYSA license when applied to data. The license is intended to clarify the terms under which people make contributions to the project and the terms under which people can use the data. It is a basically a share alike license for data.
2009-2-26: The OSMF License Working Group is excited and pleased to announce the completion of legal drafting and review by our legal counsel of the new proposed license, the Open Database License Agreement (ODbL).
 
The Foundation supports the adoption of this license and has reviewed it with their lawyers and it is now being discussed by the community. The proposed license has been developed by [http://www.opendatacommons.org/ OpenDataCommons] a project of the [http://www.okfn.org/ Open Knowledge Foundation].
The working group have put much effort in to inputting OSMs needs and supporting the creation of this license however OpenStreetMap’s expertise is not in law. Therefore, we have worked with the license authors and others to build a suitable home where a community and process can be built around it. Its new home is with the Open Data Commons http://www.opendatacommons.org. We encourage the OSM community join in the Open Data Commons comments process from today to make sure that the license is the best possible license for us.
 
We are now in a Board Review stage. The Foundation's License Working Group presented and submitted a [http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_2mp8f5shj proposal document] to the Foundation board. A summary was also presented at the State Of The Map 2009 conference. The intent now is to answer some question's the board raised and improve and clarify the proposal document so that it can be presented to the Foundation's members for a vote. This process is documented [[Working Group Minutes|here]]. We also welcome any review and comment by other bodies working in the open intellectual properties rights arena.
The license remains firmly rooted in the attribution, share-alike provisions of the existing Creative Commons License but the ODbL is far more suitable for open factual databases rather than the creative works of art. It extends far greater potential protection and is far clearer when, why and where the share-alike provisions are triggered.▼
 
The proposed license comes in two parts. One, the [http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ Open Database License (ODbL)] covers the database itself and, and a set of upgraded [[osm:Open Data License/Contributor_Terms| Contributor Terms]] covers the content of the database.
==The license==
 
▲The license remains firmly rooted in the attribution, share-alike provisions of the existing Creative Commons License but the ODbL is far more suitable for open factual databases rather than the creative works of art. It extends far greater potential protection and is far clearer when, why and where the share-alike provisions are triggered.
The license is now available [http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ here] and you are welcome to make final comments about the license itself via a wiki and mailing list also at [http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ here] up until 20th March 23:59 GMT. To be clear, this process is led by the ODC and comments should be made there as part of that process.
 
== Acceptance and Implementation Process ==▼
===Older versions:===
 
* [[File:open_database_licence_2008-04-10_draft.pdf]]
* [[File:open_database_license_01_draft.pdf]] (March 2008)
 
==Use Case Review==
 
A number of Use Cases were submitted by the OpenStreetMap community and reviewed by legal counsel at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati acting on behalf of the OSM Foundation. Review comments are available as a PDF [[:File:2008-02-28_legalreviewofosmlicenseusecases2.pdf|here]].
 
▲==Acceptance and Implementation Process==
 
We have a [[osm:Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan|proposed adoption plan]]. This is not cast in stone and we welcome direct comments on [[osm:Talk:Open_Data_License/Implementation_Plan|the discussion page for the plan]].
 
In summary, we’d like to give time for final license comments to be absorbed, ask OSMF members to vote on whether they wish to put the current version of the new license to the community for adoption and then begin the adoption process itself. The board has decided to wait until the final version before formally reviewing the license.
 
Our legal counsel has also responded to the OSM-contributed [[osm:Open_Data_Licence/Use_Cases|Use Cases]] and his responses have been added there. OSMFs legal counsel also recommends the use of the [http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/fil/ Factual Information License] for the individual contributions from individual data contributors, and any aggregation covered by the ODbL.
 
==Open Issues==
 
There other open issues that we seek OSM community support and input on. If you would like to help, please give input [[osm:Open_Data_License/Implementation_Issues|here]]
 
For instance:
 
* Who actually should be the licensor of the ODbL license?
* The OSM Foundation is the logical choice but are there any alternatives?
* And implementation What Ifs … for example, what if the license is not accepted?
* …
 
== More information ==
Thank you for your patience with this process. The license working group looks forward to working with community input and an opening up of the process.
More information including use cases and open issues is available [[osm:Open Database License|on the OSM wiki]].
Ulfm
Bureaucrats, inactive, Administrators
145

edits

Retrieved from "https://osmfoundation.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/160"