----- 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.
--
Oh dear. Embarrassingly I realise my email at 17:16 was not quite what I
had intended to write. My second sentance "Which is why the LWG needed to
get specific agreement from the OS last
summer that OS OpenData could be used in OSM", should have been "Which is
why the LWG needed to get specific agreement from the OS last summer that OS
OpenData could be used under the ODbL and therefore used in OSM".
So essentially what I was saying was that I believe the statement in [1]
grants additional rights (to those contained in the OS OpenData licence),
so that OpenData can be used under ODbL, whereas Chilly seems to be saying
the statement in [1] means the OS has said data released under OS OpenData
licence is compatible with ODbL.
Apologies if this was not clear.
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
