[OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council
Hello everyone, Re: the Hampshire ROW data - this is the response I got from the person I am in contact with. In answer to the queries below, the data is free to use as is the OS open data on their website. The data was originally captured against the 10k raster data, meaning it carried OS IPR. However, OS introduced an exemption process that allowed creators of data with IPR (Derived Data) to apply for an exemption. Cambridgeshire were the first to successfully do this, we then used their process/application to apply to have Hampshire's exempt, which was granted. Following this we can now release the data using the OS open data licence, as the exemption basiclaly means that it can be used in the same manner as the data that OS have published themselves as open. The query as to our data being on the OS site I think refers to the line in the licence where OS are actually saying their Open Data is on the site, not all data that gets published under the licence, for example our RoW data. 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? Thanks, Nick ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
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. cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-GB] Response from Hampshire County Council
Hello Gregory, The quotes are used to quote the email. So the 'so in summary...' bit is mine and the 'so in short' is theirs. Nick -Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com wrote: - To: Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk From: Gregory nomoregra...@googlemail.com Date: 11/06/2012 02:02PM Cc: talk...@openstreetmap.org, legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] Response from Hampshire County Council Hi Nick, It's not clear where the e-mail ends and your commenting starts. If the paragraph So in short, we believe the RoW data can... is there's, then I'd support using it in OpenStreetMap. I believe it's commonly accepted that acknowledgement/copyright/attribution made in the relevant wiki page (imports catalogue?) and in a source tag for the changeset, is acceptable. On 11 June 2012 13:28, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote: Hello everyone, Re: the Hampshire ROW data - this is the response I got from the person I am in contact with. In answer to the queries below, the data is free to use as is the OS open data on their website. The data was originally captured against the 10k raster data, meaning it carried OS IPR. However, OS introduced an exemption process that allowed creators of data with IPR (Derived Data) to apply for an exemption. Cambridgeshire were the first to successfully do this, we then used their process/application to apply to have Hampshire's exempt, which was granted. Following this we can now release the data using the OS open data licence, as the exemption basiclaly means that it can be used in the same manner as the data that OS have published themselves as open. The query as to our data being on the OS site I think refers to the line in the licence where OS are actually saying their Open Data is on the site, not all data that gets published under the licence, for example our RoW data. 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? Thanks, Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list talk...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council
- 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]. So it might be valid to ask, does the agreement from the OS last summer now cover the HCC ( and presumably Cambridgeshire data).?, and looking into the wording of [1] I cant see anything which would definitely say it is. But we don't know the exact wording of the exemption, whereas the contact in HCC obviously does, and it could well be that the wording of the exemption taken together with the agreement between OSM OS would allow use of HCC data However we also seem to have a very clear statement from HCC we believe the RoW data can be incorporated into OpenStreetMap . I think the best that can be said is that we cant be 100% sure of the legal position, but that we have been led to believe by HCC that we can use that data. So I guess we should be able to rely on that statement alone, and not try and justify it on any other grounds. The problem is of course that we may now find ourselves having to ask for clarification from any other local authority which releases such data, since I cant see the statement by HCC being binding on other local authorities. Regards David [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.region.gb/6516 cheers, Martin ___ 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
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. -- Cheers, Chris user: chillly ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council
- 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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council
- 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
