Thanks Paul, this is good news. These kinds of license are appearing in
a number of countries and are a great way of providing open geodata by
governmental organisations.
One small correction, but a positive one: The license is based on the
pure UK Open Government License [1] rather than the one used by the UK
OS OpenData. The Ordnance Survey use an adultered version which is not
necessarily compatible with OSM; we had to get explicit clarification
from them to use data.
I've just read through the BC license and my conclusion is also it is
compatible with our contributor terms in conjunction with ODbL, CC-BY-SA
or a future license provided that on our official attribution page [2]
we attribute them (5a) and state that we have not official status (5b).
The existing OS attribution can be used as a model. A link to a separate
project web-page describing the data and how we use it would also help
with 5c.
My only caution is 7c (third party rights) but agree with Paul's
conclusion. My guess is that this would be more applicable to documents
that contain specific elements like a photo or map with more restrictive
licensing. For geodata, just check that if there is suite of datasets,
that there is not one with more restrictive rights.
Mike
[1] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/
[2] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution
On 03/05/2012 01:17, Paul Norman wrote:
The BC government has released data under the Open Government License for
Government of BC Information[1] which is based on the same license used for
OS OpenData information[2]. OS OpenData can be used in OSM[3]
The OGL BC is, broadly speaking, an attribution only license that makes
allowances for attribution where combining information from multiple
sources.
The only potential concerns are under section 7, exemptions, and section 10,
governing law.
7a and 7b cover information that the FIPPA act prohibits the disclosure of.
The government does not have the authority to grant permission to use
information FIPPA prevents the disclosure of so even if these clauses were
not present it would not change what they had licensed.[4]
In practice this is a non-issue since the type of data that would be of
interest to OSM is not personal information that the government is
prohibited from disclosing. These terms are also of the BC equivalent of the
OS terms.
7c states that the government does not license what it doesn't have the
rights to license. Without this term they would still not be granting a
license to information they can't license.
7d is not an issue. There is no database directive in BC and otherwise the
term is the same as the OS term
10 is the same as the OS term.
Given that the OS license is already acceptable I see no reason why this
license is also not acceptable.
[1]: http://www.data.gov.bc.ca/dbc/admin/terms.page
[2]:
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.
pdf
[3]: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata
[4]: FIPPA would override the license.
_______________________________________________
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
