Re: [OSM-legal-talk] BC Open Government License
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
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] BC Open Government License
I've added DataBC to the wiki page. I've had a look at the data and I don't foresee any imports taking place but I do see some of the layers being useful for references (e.g. names of highway rest areas) as well as for pointing out where there is something to map. It looks like the data from the large complex data sets is already included in datasets we can already use like CanVec. The origin of the data is well documented and it's all from government ministries. There's always the chance that they mistakenly included some third-party data but that's possible with any data source. I'm still working on trying to get the raw GeoTIFFs from DataBC instead of just access to the openmaps server. From: Michael Collinson [mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz] Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] BC Open Government License 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
