Talk:Import/Catalogue
Contents |
Considered OK, Derived as new work. No ToS issue
Could someone explain "Derived as new work. " in the phrase "Considered OK, Derived as new work. No ToS issue" used alongside some of the imagery sources used in Haiti mapping. Dmgroom 11:31, 29 August 2010 (BST)
CanVec and GeoBase
Both CanVec and geoBase are okay for ODbL / CT per email from NRCan, http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2010-August/003292.html Rw 18:46, 31 August 2010 (BST)
Geogratis
GeoGratis data is okay per email from NRCan, http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2010-August/003235.html Rw 18:49, 31 August 2010 (BST)
SPOT Pakistan
Currently SPOT Pakistan images are listed as "OK" under the contributor terms. Can someone explain how the sentence "to integrate the DERIVATIVE WORKS in the OpenStreetMap database under CC-BY-SA licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/) and/or Open Database licence (ODbL: http://www.opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/OpenDBL)" meets the conditions of Clause 3 of the CT? I.e. how does the express licensing of CC-BY-SA and ODbL allow for relicensing under any "free and open license"? Also "granted by Spot Image a limited, non-exclusive, non transferable, licence" feels incompatible with Clause 2 of the CT, although with the license being on the images rather than the derivative work, that part might not be as problematic.
Surrey Air Services
Surrey Air Services is currently listed as ODbL/DbCL only. This seems to preclude it from being OK with the CT. Is there a more broad license offered than just ODbL/DbCL?
That thought had crossed my mind too. The data was released under ODbL as it was believed this would be helpful to OSM, but technically that makes it incompatible with the CTs. I consider there is a loop hole in the licenses when ODbL is applied to aerial imagery tiles which were supplied: if the "database" is the file structure and the "contents" are the images themselves covered by DbCL, we can pretty much use the images as we please. However, we should verify the owners of the data are happy with that. --TimSC 20:12, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Cleanup Request
We should transform the tables to a template approach to make it more understandable --!i! 
12:55, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
- Better to seperate from "Import done" and "Import in Progress" --Deltabrasil 15:40, 24 December 2010 (UTC)
