On Thu, 2012-05-31 at 23:11 +0100, David Groom wrote: > On talk-gb Nick Whiteleg recently announced what initially seemed to be > some good news , that Hampshire County Council have released their Rights of > Way data under the OS OpenData licence. > > However, my initial thoughts, and those of Robert Whittaker, was that this > might not seem as good news as at first appeared, because the OS OpenData is > not compatible with ODbL, and OSM had to seem explicit permission from OS > for the use of their data to be covered by OSM's ODbL licence. Since this > explicit agreement only covered the OS products, it seemed to be, and > Robert, that this could not be extended to the Hampshire County Council > (HCC) Rights of Way (ROW) data.
As OSM's agreement is with the OS and not HCC I'd concur that strictly speaking the HCC dataset is not compatible with the ODbl. I do wonder though just how keen HCC would be to enforce attribution of a third party, especially when that party had previously stated that it had no objections to it's data being used in that way. > I did have one further thought, which was that I could not see how HC ROW > data could be released under the OS OpenData (OSOD) licence, since the OSOD > licence is quite explicit in that in covers "use of OS OpenData made > available at https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/opendatadownload/products.html > and at http://data.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/ ", and its difficult to see how > this could cover HCC data. Yes, that thought had occurred to me too. > However I am now wondering if the statement on HCC web site [1] "The data > has been published as Open Data under the Ordnance Survey Open Data > Licence." is in fact a slightly badly worded statement. > > A possible scenario which occurs to me is as follows: > > HCC used OS Opendata to derive the HSS ROW data. By this I mean that HCC > used the OS VectorMapDistrict rasters, over which they then drew the ROW > data which HCC had from their definitive statements. Comparing the OpenData and non-OpenData versions of the definitive map makes this seem highly unlikely. What I suspect happened is that the OS agreed that HCC could licence their derivative work of a non-OpenData product under the OS OpenData licence. I guess what this boils down to is the question of whether our ODbL compatibility agreement with the OS is for anything they release under the OS OpenData licence (except Code-Point Open) or just for the stuff that had released at the time the agreement was made. My reading of Michael Collinson's post to the Talk-GB list[1] leads me to believe that it is the former. Cheers, Andy [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-July/011995.html _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk