Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [Talk-GB] Response from Hampshire County Council

[Robert Whittaker (OSM)]

On 11 June 2012 13:28, Nick Whitelegg nick.whitel...@solent.ac.uk wrote:
 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'd say that it depends entirely on the precise details of the
correspondence between OS and Henk Hoff on behalf of LWG that was
referred to in [1]. (ie. whether we should take their response to
apply to the OS OpenData products, or any of their own rights that
they license under their OS OpenData License.)

Whatever was said there though, I don't think it's appropriate for
individuals mappers to have to come to a decision on anything but the
most straightforward licensing issues. I'd suggest we defer to LWG,
and ask them (on behalf of OSMF) whether they're happy with us
including this data in OSM. At the end of the day it's OSMF who are
publishing the OSM data, and it's the project as a whole that will
suffer if we include data that we don't have the right to distribute.

Robert.

[1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-July/011995.html

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
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

[Nick Whitelegg]

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