On 31 May 2012 10:46, Nick Whitelegg <nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk> wrote: > I think we can import OS OpenData stuff into OSM can't we?
We can certainly use OS's OS OpenData products (with the exception of CodePoint Open) in OSM because LWG obtained explicit permission from Ordnance Survey to do so. [1] The OS OpenData License consists of the Open Government License (OGL) together with an additional attribution clause. The OGL itself is compatible with both CC-By-SA and ODbL, since it mentions them explicitly. However, my understanding is that the OS OpenData License itself isn't compatible with ODbL because of the additional attribution clause. The attribution requirement means that any derived works need to maintain the attribution. But ODbL allows users to give away Produced Works which can then be re-used without any attribution requirements. Hence we have an incompatibility. This argument was disputed by some people during the license change debate, but LWG still felt is necessary to get explicit permission from OS to use their OS OpenData [1]. More importantly, LWG have explicitly stated that we cannot use CodePoint Open (since Royal Mail refused permission) even though it too is licensed under the OS OpenData license [2]. So I think we have to take it that LWG's position is that the OS OpenData License itself isn't enough to guarantee ODbL compatibility. Hence, unfortunately, I don't think we can use the Hampshire data (going forward under ODbL) unless we get explicit permission from the copyright holders. For the maps, this would presumably mean both the council and OS. It's a real pain that OS felt it necessary to fork the Open Government License. :-( Robert. [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-July/011995.html [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-January/012688.html -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
