----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Hill" <o...@raggedred.net>
To: <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council
On 11/06/12 17:16, David Groom wrote:
----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Koppenhoefer"
<dieterdre...@gmail.com>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
<legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council
2012/6/11 Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk>:
In answer to the queries below, the data is free to use as is the OS
open data on their website.
...
So in short, we believe the RoW data can be incorporated into
OpenStreetmap as long as acknowledgement and copyright is shown from
where it came and how can be used"
So in summary it appears that the OS gave HCC specific permission to
use
this, and I'm guessing it's OK to use in OSM, but I am not in any sense
of
the word a legal expert so, what are people's opinions on this?
I am not a legal expert either, but their statements above seem clear
to me: if OS data is compatible with CT/ODBL also the HCC data should
be compatible.
Except that the OS OpenData licence is NOT compatible with the CT / ODbL.
Which is why the LWG needed to get specific agreement from the OS last
summer that OS OpenData could be used in OSM [1].
That is not true. LWG did not get 'specific agreement' from OS. We are
simply using OS OpenData in compliance with the OS OpenData licence and OS
confirmed:
"The Ordnance Survey has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS
OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0".
This is not a special or specific agreement. If there was special
permission there would be something in writing to the effect "We (OS)
grant You (OSM) permission .... " or somesuch and this does not exist. We
are simply using the the OS OpenData under their licence and OS confirmed
that that is acceptable.
--
I could equally reply that:
"If OS had wanted to confirm that the OS OpenData licence and ODbL were
compatible then they would have said something in writing to the effect 'We
(OS) believe that data released under the OS OpenData licence is compatible
with ODbL' or somesuch, and this does not exist. What their statement does,
is grant additional rights to OS OpenData so that it can be used under
ODbL".
One of the problems is that all that has been made public is the phrase "has
no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData being released
under the Open Database License 1.0." [1], which is obviously taken from a
larger document, and in the context of other non-disclosed correspondence.
I still believe my interpretation is the correct one to be drawn from the
short quote above, but would concede that it is possible that Chris'
interpretation could have been meant.
Regards
David
[1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.region.gb/6516
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
