I've been looking over the data my city provides under a ostensibly open licence, and realizing how useful much of it is. Reading the licence over it seems plausible that it'd be compatible with our licence. The licence can be seen here. And the datasets here Or to save you the trouble of clicking on that, here is the licence in full: The Open Government Licence – VancouverThe Open Government Licence – Vancouver is based on version 2.0 of the Open Government Licence – British Columbia, which was developed through public consultation and collaborative efforts by the provincial and federal government. The only substantive change to the licence is references to the Province of British Columbia are replaced with the City of Vancouver. You are encouraged to use the Information that is available under this licence with only a few conditions. Using Information under this licence
You are free to:
You must, where you do any of the above:
If the Information Provider does not provide a specific attribution statement, or if you are using information from several information providers and multiple attributions are not practical for your product or application, you must use the following attribution statement: Contains information licensed under the Open Government Licence – Vancouver.
Exemptions
Non-endorsement
No warranty
Governing law
Definitions
"Information" means information resources or Records protected by copyright or other information or Records that is/are offered for use under the terms of this licence. "Information Provider" means The City of Vancouver. “Personal Information” has the meaning set out in Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (B.C.). “Records” has the meaning set out in section 29 of the Interpretation Act (B.C.). "You" means the natural or legal person, or body of persons corporate or incorporate, acquiring rights under this licence. Versioning
Reading it over I'm feeling pretty optimistic, but is it compatible? They have lots of good stuff that'd improve the map of Vancouver. After appropriate import discussions, of course. asked 30 Sep '17, 01:23 keithonearth |
Your first port of call should probably be the talk-ca mailing list, where people are likely to have come across this issue before: https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/ That said, in general, the main issue with this sort of licence is generally whether the data provider is happy that the attribution provided by 'downstream' users of OpenStreetMap is sufficient. It's impractical to ask every user of OSM data to include "© Government of Vancouver" (or whatever) in their on-map credits. Rather, we ask that people link their standard-issue "© OpenStreetMap" credit to osm.org/copyright which, in turn, provides the credits (either directly on that page for the largest datasets, or via a link to a wiki page). That may not be enough to satisfy the data provider's attribution requirements; all you can do is ask them. Check with talk-ca first to see if anyone has already obtained permission, and if not, the Licensing Working Group can advise you on how best to approach them for permission. answered 30 Sep '17, 21:32 Richard ♦ I was hoping that simply crediting them in the edit summary would be sufficient. From your answer I understand that may or may not be enough, and they are under no obligation to clarify that in the licence itself. Do I understand correctly?
(01 Oct '17, 00:07)
keithonearth
A map produced from OSM data, containing the Vancouver data, will usually just be attributed "© OpenStreetMap". Vancouver's clear request above is that "You must... include any attribution statement specified by [the City of Vancouver]". They could well argue that just putting "© OpenStreetMap" doesn't qualify as that. Certainly noting them in the changeset comment ("edit summary") is almost certainly not good enough - at the very least they'd expect a mention on http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors, and in fact their name is already there, which suggests this might already have been cleared. Like I say, go talk to talk-ca.
(01 Oct '17, 13:01)
Richard ♦
1
Thanks for the link Richard, I will point out that there's a minor typo in it, a trailing comma, which breaks the link. Here is a link that should work, directly to the Vancouver section.
(01 Oct '17, 18:11)
keithonearth
|