Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 28/10/11 10:18, Michael Collinson wrote: On 27/10/2011 11:47, Gervase Markham wrote: On 04/07/11 13:53, Michael Collinson wrote: At the moment, this excludes Code-Point Open, (postcode) data since they are awaiting a response from Royal Mail who have rights in that dataset. I just dropped in to find out why I still can't search for most full UK postcodes using Nominatim, and if there was anything I can do to help. Do I take it that this is the reason? :-| I don't know if that is the reason but the at the moment regretfully still holds and, given Royal Mail's known position regarding IP, I am not going to hold my breath on it changing. No it's not the reason, because Nominatim can handle that data separately. Indeed I believe Brian has code to do so in the next version of Nominatim. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 04/07/11 13:53, Michael Collinson wrote: At the moment, this excludes Code-Point Open, (postcode) data since they are awaiting a response from Royal Mail who have rights in that dataset. I just dropped in to find out why I still can't search for most full UK postcodes using Nominatim, and if there was anything I can do to help. Do I take it that this is the reason? :-| Gerv ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Steve Coast wrote: Hi Robert Was this resolved with (I believe) Henk's email? Robert and Steve - has there been any progress on this yet? Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-ODbL-OK-tp6545997p6633300.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 29 July 2011 13:09, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Steve Coast wrote: Hi Robert Was this resolved with (I believe) Henk's email? Robert and Steve - has there been any progress on this yet? Not that I'm aware of. As far as I know, OSMF have yet to say anything officially about LWG's statements regarding the CTs. I replied to Henk's email the day after he sent it (21st July) explaining that I still need an official statement from OSMF. I also responded (off-list) to the message from Steve that you quoted (26th July) saying the same thing. Unfortunately, I haven't had a reply or acknowledgement to either of those emails that I sent, so I know about as much as you do as to what's going on. :-( Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Hi Robert Was this resolved with (I believe) Henk's email? Steve On 7/21/2011 12:57 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: On 20 July 2011 19:32, Steve Coastst...@asklater.com wrote: I'm curious how the OSMF saying something magically makes it more valid than the LWG saying it, given the LWG is a body run by... the OSMF? As I already explained to you off-list when you asked this before: It's because the CTs are a contract between myself and OSMF. What a third party has to say about how they're interpreted carries much less weight than a statement by one of the parties to the contract. If the CTs were an agreement between myself and LWG, then clearly an assurance by LWG would be sufficient. But that's not the case here. LWG may well be run by the OSMF, but it is a *working group*, and working groups typically don't have delegated authority to act on behalf of / represent that main body. Indeed one of the OSMF board members has recently indicated that it's possible for OSMF to reject any particular stance taken by LWG. If that's the case, then it would suggest that LWG does not have the authority to act on behalf of OSMF. (For what it's worth, I think that's entirely appropriate. Any policy decisions should be passed by the elected OSMF board, even if it's simply a matter of approving LWG's recommendations.) However, maybe this isn't the case, and LWG does have the authority to speak for OSMF in licensing matters. In which case, a statement to that effect would also satisfy my concerns. If the OSMF board expects contributors to agree to the CTs based on an assurance from LWG, then why would it be a problem for them to publicly endorse that assurance? Robert. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Steve Coast steve@... writes: I'm curious how the OSMF saying something magically makes it more valid than the LWG saying it, given the LWG is a body run by... the OSMF? Steve you recently mentioned that you couldn't speak for the OSMF without going to the OSMF board. Might the same apply to the LWG? If the answer is no, and the LWG is authorized to make statements such as an interpretation of the contributor terms without a separate say-so from the OSMF board, then it would be good to make that explicit. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 20 July 2011 19:32, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: I'm curious how the OSMF saying something magically makes it more valid than the LWG saying it, given the LWG is a body run by... the OSMF? As I already explained to you off-list when you asked this before: It's because the CTs are a contract between myself and OSMF. What a third party has to say about how they're interpreted carries much less weight than a statement by one of the parties to the contract. If the CTs were an agreement between myself and LWG, then clearly an assurance by LWG would be sufficient. But that's not the case here. LWG may well be run by the OSMF, but it is a *working group*, and working groups typically don't have delegated authority to act on behalf of / represent that main body. Indeed one of the OSMF board members has recently indicated that it's possible for OSMF to reject any particular stance taken by LWG. If that's the case, then it would suggest that LWG does not have the authority to act on behalf of OSMF. (For what it's worth, I think that's entirely appropriate. Any policy decisions should be passed by the elected OSMF board, even if it's simply a matter of approving LWG's recommendations.) However, maybe this isn't the case, and LWG does have the authority to speak for OSMF in licensing matters. In which case, a statement to that effect would also satisfy my concerns. If the OSMF board expects contributors to agree to the CTs based on an assurance from LWG, then why would it be a problem for them to publicly endorse that assurance? Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Robert Whittaker (OSM robert.whittaker+osm@... writes: Just to remind you that, despite the (OSM) in the From line, Robert is only speaking on behalf of himself. -- Andrew ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: There's a draft statement in the LWG minutes a few weeks ago [2]. I wonder if LWG got round to approving this at their most recent meeting... They have now done so! In response to community requests, the LWG formally clarifies as follows: The intent of the Contributor Terms as regards contributions that come from or are derived from third parties is: 1) To ask the contributor to be *reasonably* certain that such data can be distributed under the specific specific licenses, as explicitly listed in clause 3 of the contributor terms: CC-BY-SA 2.0 and ODbL 1.0. We also stress reasonably certain rather than must because we recognise that most contributors are not lawyers and do not have access to one. If in doubt, consult the wiki or mailing lists to see what the community thinks or knows. 2) To give the OSM community and the OSMF the ability to remove data that should not be distributed as part of the OSM database. Should the license change in the future, continued distribution of some data that comes from or is derived from third parties may no longer be possible. If this happens, it will have to be removed. This will be the responsibility of OSMF and the OSM community at that time. It is not necessary for current contributors to make guesses. (from https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_123cdchck62pli=1) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-ODbL-OK-tp6545997p6603389.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: There's a draft statement in the LWG minutes a few weeks ago [2]. I wonder if LWG got round to approving this at their most recent meeting... They have now done so! In response to community requests, the LWG formally clarifies as follows: The intent of the Contributor Terms as regards contributions that come from or are derived from third parties is: 1) To ask the contributor to be *reasonably* certain that such data can be distributed under the specific specific licenses, as explicitly listed in clause 3 of the contributor terms: CC-BY-SA 2.0 and ODbL 1.0. Well, I'm reasonably certain that the Ordnance Survey have not permitted their content to be licensed using the DbCL. While they may have stated that their content can be distributed as part of a database that licensed under ODbL they made no reference to what content license should be used. This was probably an oversight, but with an explicit statement about which content license is applicable the default assumption has to be that their content is still published with *only* an OS OpenData license not with a DbCL license. I'm sure if I'm wrong about this someone will be able to point me to the statement where this is covered. 80n ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 20 July 2011 17:25, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: There's a draft statement in the LWG minutes a few weeks ago [2]. I wonder if LWG got round to approving this at their most recent meeting... They have now done so! Yes, I've seen -- and that's great. Once OSMF have confirmed that this is their view too (or that LWG are authorised to speak for them on this matter) then I'll happily sign the CTs. :-) Hopefully this won't take too long. In the mean time, could I suggest that other mappers don't start replacing my contributions just yet. I'd hate for people to waste their time replacing stuff that (hopefully) can be kept anyway, or (worse) replacing things with inferior versions because they can't replicate everything I've tagged from other sources. Robert. In response to community requests, the LWG formally clarifies as follows: The intent of the Contributor Terms as regards contributions that come from or are derived from third parties is: 1) To ask the contributor to be *reasonably* certain that such data can be distributed under the specific specific licenses, as explicitly listed in clause 3 of the contributor terms: CC-BY-SA 2.0 and ODbL 1.0. We also stress reasonably certain rather than must because we recognise that most contributors are not lawyers and do not have access to one. If in doubt, consult the wiki or mailing lists to see what the community thinks or knows. 2) To give the OSM community and the OSMF the ability to remove data that should not be distributed as part of the OSM database. Should the license change in the future, continued distribution of some data that comes from or is derived from third parties may no longer be possible. If this happens, it will have to be removed. This will be the responsibility of OSMF and the OSM community at that time. It is not necessary for current contributors to make guesses. (from https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_123cdchck62pli=1) cheers Richard -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On Wed, 2011-07-20 at 09:25 -0700, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: There's a draft statement in the LWG minutes a few weeks ago [2]. I wonder if LWG got round to approving this at their most recent meeting... They have now done so! snip statement Looks interesting, I'll certainly be reviewing it once the minutes have been adopted but doesn't section 8 (This is the entire agreement between You and OSMF which supersedes any prior agreement, whether written, oral or other, relating to the subject matter of this agreement.) bit of the CTs invalidate this? Regards, Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 7/20/2011 11:29 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: On 20 July 2011 17:25, Richard Fairhurstrich...@systemed.net wrote: Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: There's a draft statement in the LWG minutes a few weeks ago [2]. I wonder if LWG got round to approving this at their most recent meeting... They have now done so! Yes, I've seen -- and that's great. Once OSMF have confirmed that this is their view too (or that LWG are authorised to speak for them on this matter) then I'll happily sign the CTs. :-) I'm curious how the OSMF saying something magically makes it more valid than the LWG saying it, given the LWG is a body run by... the OSMF? Hopefully this won't take too long. In the mean time, could I suggest that other mappers don't start replacing my contributions just yet. I'd hate for people to waste their time replacing stuff that (hopefully) can be kept anyway, or (worse) replacing things with inferior versions because they can't replicate everything I've tagged from other sources. Robert. In response to community requests, the LWG formally clarifies as follows: The intent of the Contributor Terms as regards contributions that come from or are derived from third parties is: 1) To ask the contributor to be *reasonably* certain that such data can be distributed under the specific specific licenses, as explicitly listed in clause 3 of the contributor terms: CC-BY-SA 2.0 and ODbL 1.0. We also stress reasonably certain rather than must because we recognise that most contributors are not lawyers and do not have access to one. If in doubt, consult the wiki or mailing lists to see what the community thinks or knows. 2) To give the OSM community and the OSMF the ability to remove data that should not be distributed as part of the OSM database. Should the license change in the future, continued distribution of some data that comes from or is derived from third parties may no longer be possible. If this happens, it will have to be removed. This will be the responsibility of OSMF and the OSM community at that time. It is not necessary for current contributors to make guesses. (from https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_123cdchck62pli=1) cheers Richard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: In the mean time, could I suggest that other mappers don't start replacing my contributions just yet. Speaking personally: sure. I'm happy to leave your stuff alone for a week. I think replacing Etienne's contributions in the areas I'm interested in will keep me busy enough! :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-ODbL-OK-tp6545997p6604597.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 5 July 2011 15:57, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: But personally I consider that this OS statement has put the case beyond reasonable doubt, and it would be terrific if - the Contributor Terms clarification permitting - you could agree for your data. Indeed. I assure you that I'm keener that you to allow my contributions to be kept. I want to be able to continue contributing to OSM, and I don't want my hard work to go to waste. This issue of ODbL+DbCL compatibility is actually irrelevant as far as my CTs issue is concerned, provided the clarification suggested by Mike [1] is adopted. Under that, you only have to agree that your contributions are compatible with the current license -- which is CC-By-SA -- and there's never been a compatibility issue there. So I'm still just waiting for the CTs clarification to be officially adopted by OSMF. From some recent email correspondence with Steve C, it seems that the OSMF board aren't particularly aware of the CTs issue. So the best way for clarification I'm seeking to come would probably be for LWG to issue a statement, and then the OSMF board to simply endorse it. There's a draft statement in the LWG minutes a few weeks ago [2]. I wonder if LWG got round to approving this at their most recent meeting... Robert. [1] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011931.html [2] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_121dzjmk5c5pli=1 -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 04/07/11 18:36, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: So presumably we also need confirmation from Ordnance Survey that they're happy for their content to be distributed under DbCL (or at least under the ODbL+DbCL combination). No, because they've agreed that licensing their data under ODbL is not a breach of their original licence. That means that once it is under ODbL it is simply a matter of whether DbCL is compatible with ODbL, which I'm assuming it is. I other words, once the data is licensed under ODbL, the OS OpenData license is irrelevant. -- Borbus. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Fantastic news - thanks to the License Working Group for their efforts on this. I've added a new answer to the http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/5792/can-i-accept-the-new-contributor-terms-if-ive-contributed-data-from-ordnance-survey-opendata /Can I accept the new Contributor Terms if I've contributed data from Ordnance Survey OpenData?/ question on the OSM Help Centre. I would encourage everyone on this list to seek out any contributors who have previously held off accepting the CTs because of this licensing issue and make them aware of this new announcement. Would a mention on the http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Template:News OSM News be appropriate? -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-ODbL-OK-tp6545997p6549115.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Michael Collinson mike@... writes: Ordnance Survey has explicitly considered any licensing conflict between their license and ODbL and has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0. As I understand it the objection was not so much whether the data can be distributed under the ODbL but whether the contributor terms (which under some reasonable interpretations allow OSMF to distribute under a different licence in future) are compatible. You have previously given your personal interpretation of the CTs, which is that a contributor need only assert that data is compatible with the *current* licence terms (and so might be incompatible with some putative future licence). Will there be official confirmation from OSMF backing up this interpretation? If not, is there a means for people to click 'I accept the CTs, subject to the interpretation posted on the talk-gb mailing list'? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
- Original Message - From: Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Tuesday, July 05, 2011 11:19 AM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK Michael Collinson mike@... writes: Ordnance Survey has explicitly considered any licensing conflict between their license and ODbL and has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0. As I understand it the objection was not so much whether the data can be distributed under the ODbL but whether the contributor terms (which under some reasonable interpretations allow OSMF to distribute under a different licence in future) are compatible. You have previously given your personal interpretation of the CTs, which is that a contributor need only assert that data is compatible with the *current* licence terms (and so might be incompatible with some putative future licence). Will there be official confirmation from OSMF backing up this interpretation? This was discussed at the LWG meeting 21 June [1], and draft wording was proposed. I assume that this will at some stage be formalised, maybe even at tonight's LWG meeting? Regards David [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_121dzjmk5c5pli=1 If not, is there a means for people to click 'I accept the CTs, subject to the interpretation posted on the talk-gb mailing list'? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:53 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Following my correspondence and a follow-up informal meeting by Henk Hoff, I am now pleased to announce that the licensing group of the Ordnance Survey has explicitly considered any licensing conflict between their license and ODbL and has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0. Mike, Did the response that you received from the Ordnance Survey make reference to which content license could be used? Have they given permission to use their content with *any* content license or do you think they overlooked the need to consider this detail? 80n ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: So presumably we also need confirmation from Ordnance Survey that they're happy for their content to be distributed under DbCL (or at least under the ODbL+DbCL combination). I think that's a red herring, isn't it? ODbL imposes additional requirements over and above DbCL. OSM is not distributing OS OpenData under DbCL alone, nor does it permit anyone else to do so (subject to the usual 'Substantial' test, which is of course Database Directive stuff and therefore governs OS's existing data distribution business anyway). What circumstances can you envisage in which OSM-distributed OS OpenData might not be subject to the provisions of ODbL? cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-ODbL-OK-tp6545997p6549490.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 5 July 2011 13:14, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: I think that's a red herring, isn't it? ODbL imposes additional requirements over and above DbCL. OSM is not distributing OS OpenData under DbCL alone, nor does it permit anyone else to do so (subject to the usual 'Substantial' test, which is of course Database Directive stuff and therefore governs OS's existing data distribution business anyway). What circumstances can you envisage in which OSM-distributed OS OpenData might not be subject to the provisions of ODbL? My understanding is as follows: ODbL only covers the database and not it's individual contents. (The example given by OpenDataCommons is a database of photographs, where the database could be covered by ODbL and the photographs themselves by a suitable contents license -- which could be DbCL or CC-By or something else.) Without a separate license for the contents you're actually unable to distribute any of the contents of the database. (See the preamble in the legal text for ODbL, along with clauses 2.2a and 2.4.) OSM wants to distribute things under ODbL for the database and DbCL for the contents. This means that any submitted data needs to be compatible with both of those licences (or at least the two in combination). DbCL is essentially a copyright waiver on the individual contents, so downstream users only have to worry about complying with ODbL. You're right that it doesn't impose any additional requirements on downstream users. But it does grant them additional freedoms. So you therefore need additional rights to do so from any upstream suppliers. In the context of OSM, the fact that the contents will be under DbCL will enable users to make use insubstantial extracts without having to provide any attribution or share-alike or anything else. (Clause 6.2 of ODbL says that ODbL does not impose any restrictions on such extracts, so you're just left with DbCL to comply with.) Without the contents under DbCL -- for example if they were under CC-By (which is fairly close to the OS OpenData Terms), then you'd have to provide attribution even on insubstantial extracts. (Unless of course you tried to use fair use / fair dealing arguments, or claim geodata facts aren't copyrightable -- but I don't think we'd want to rely on these in all jurisdictions.) Because of this difference, I believe we would need permission from OS to distribute derivatives of their data under the specific ODbL+DbCL combination rather than just the ODbL part. It may be that we already have this and Mike just didn't mention it, or it may be that ODbL+DbCL is implicit in OS's agreeing to ODbL, but I think it's something that should be checked carefully. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: In the context of OSM, the fact that the contents will be under DbCL will enable users to make use insubstantial extracts without having to provide any attribution or share-alike or anything else. Again, as I said, insubstantial is statute law - both the EU Database Directive [1] and CDPA 1988 [2]. It applies as much to OS OpenData outside OSM+ODbL, as it does to OpenData within OSM+ODbL. I can copy and paste three lines from OS Locator here, without attribution, perfectly legally: :A1:398840:655008:398615:399058:654714:655322:null::Edward:Northumberland:Northumberland:NT95NE:NT95:Roads :A1:399382:650067:399091:399661:649884:650231:null::Shielfield:Northumberland:Northumberland:NT95SE:NT95:Roads :A1:398453:654118:397330:399045:651761:657053:null:BERWICK-UPON-TWEED:Elizabeth:Northumberland:Northumberland:NT95SE:NT95:Roads :) So it's not an issue. This freedom is already available to users of OS OpenData. There are therefore no circumstances in which OSM will be permitting use of OS OpenData without ODbL applying, over and above the freedoms which are available to users of OS OpenData regardless of OSM's involvement. There is no need to consider the effect of DbCL in isolation. cheers Richard [1] a person infringes database right in a database if, without the consent of the owner of the right, he extracts or re-utilises all or a substantial part of the contents of the database [2] References in this Part to the doing of an act restricted by the copyright in a work are to the doing of it (a) in relation to the work as a whole or any substantial part of it -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-ODbL-OK-tp6545997p6549760.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.netwrote: Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: So presumably we also need confirmation from Ordnance Survey that they're happy for their content to be distributed under DbCL (or at least under the ODbL+DbCL combination). I think that's a red herring, isn't it? ODbL imposes additional requirements over and above DbCL. OSM is not distributing OS OpenData under DbCL alone, nor does it permit anyone else to do so (subject to the usual 'Substantial' test, which is of course Database Directive stuff and therefore governs OS's existing data distribution business anyway). ODbL licenses a database of content. The content of the database can carry any license of the author's choosing. Because the OS have not specified any other content license the assumption must be that their content is still licensed under the OS OpenData license. You cannot just presume otherwise. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: So if I understand what you're saying correctly, because there are already provisions in UK law (and possibly elsewhere) that allow you to make use of insubstantial parts of a work in any way you want without infringing any copyright or database rights, we don't have to worry about getting special permission to allow OSM users to do this under ODbL+CDbL. Exactly. :) I'm not sure those statue provisions are necessarily the same thing as the liberal content license under ODbL+CDbL, but it certainly goes some way towards it. (Although if the only insubstantial allowance in CPDA is under fair dealing It's not, fortunately - it's an express statement that only reproduction of the whole of a substantial part of a copyrighted work is covered. (I've recommended it on OSM lists before, but for those who haven't seen it, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/cdpact1988.pdf is an essential reference to any discussion of copyright in the UK. Download a copy and refer to it regularly, e.g. when you're having trouble sleeping. The bit in question here is II.16.3.a.) As you know, ODbL is enforced three ways: copyright, database right, contract. The express intention behind ODbL's insubstantial clarification clause (6.2) is to ensure that the contract pillar doesn't remove your existing rights under the other two pillars. Substantial is, of course, difficult to pin down and you rightly mention the community guidelines as part of this. But I think this is analogous to what we already do for attribution. osm.org/copyright currently reads: | Our CC-BY-SA licence requires you to “give the Original Author | credit reasonable to the medium or means You are utilising”. | Individual OSM mappers do not request a credit over and above | that to “OpenStreetMap contributors”, but where data from a | national mapping agency or other major source has been included | in OpenStreetMap, it may be reasonable to credit them by | directly reproducing their credit or by linking to it on this page. We should probably do the same for the guidelines. These are the norms to which the OSM community works, but where data from a national mapping agency or other major source has been included in OpenStreetMap, you should be aware that they may have their own expectations of substantial extraction. This issue is certainly not as bad as I first thought, but I still think this is something that should be checked carefully, either by getting an explicit agreement from OS, or an OK from OSM's lawyers. Your call for your data, of course! But I think OS have demonstrated a huge amount of good faith on this, and it would be a shame to bother their staff further - particularly given that all public-sector staff are under the cosh at the moment. The law isn't black and white: it works with probabilities and intentions, and Mike and Henk's work has clearly illustrated OS's intention is that they're happy with OpenData being included in OSM. Because the law _isn't_ black and white, and because factual databases are (as a very rich case law history demonstrates) a particularly complex and still unsettled area, there are always going to be areas with slight divergences. That's natural. But personally I consider that this OS statement has put the case beyond reasonable doubt, and it would be terrific if - the Contributor Terms clarification permitting - you could agree for your data. Especially for those of us who like mapping Oxfordshire and the Severn Way (ok, I declare an interest. I won't actually be allowed to remap that bit of the Severn Way you did. Anna is still barely talking to me after the number of stinging nettles when she and I mapped the adjoining section ;) ). cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-ODbL-OK-tp6545997p6550116.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] wrote: Sent: 04 July 2011 2:03 PM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK Mike Collinson wrote: I would like to thank the Ordnance Survey for their kind consideration and the speed in which they were able to give a response. ...and thank you, Mike and Henk, for taking this on. +1 to that Cheers Andy ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Good news. I hope that helps a number of UK contributors who have been uncertain as to whether they can accept the new contributor terms because their contributions are derived in part from OS OpenData. Unless you have used Code-Point Open data, unequivocally, yes you can. Following my correspondence and a follow-up informal meeting by Henk Hoff, I am now pleased to announce that the licensing group of the Ordnance Survey has explicitly considered any licensing conflict between their license and ODbL and has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0. At the moment, this excludes Code-Point Open, (postcode) data since they are awaiting a response from Royal Mail who have rights in that dataset. Pending the Royal Mail response, the OS may well also add a specific ODbL compatibility clause. If permitted, I will make some of the correspondence public so that you can see the exact question asked and the response. I would like to thank the Ordnance Survey for their kind consideration and the speed in which they were able to give a response. Regards, Michael Collinson License Working Group ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
Mike Collinson wrote: I would like to thank the Ordnance Survey for their kind consideration and the speed in which they were able to give a response. ...and thank you, Mike and Henk, for taking this on. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-ODbL-OK-tp6545997p6546022.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
- Original Message - From: Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz To: OSM talk-gb talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Monday, July 04, 2011 1:53 PM Subject: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK Good news. I hope that helps a number of UK contributors who have been uncertain as to whether they can accept the new contributor terms because their contributions are derived in part from OS OpenData. Unless you have used Code-Point Open data, unequivocally, yes you can. Following my correspondence and a follow-up informal meeting by Henk Hoff, I am now pleased to announce that the licensing group of the Ordnance Survey has explicitly considered any licensing conflict between their license and ODbL and has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0. At the moment, this excludes Code-Point Open, (postcode) data since they are awaiting a response from Royal Mail who have rights in that dataset. Pending the Royal Mail response, the OS may well also add a specific ODbL compatibility clause. If permitted, I will make some of the correspondence public so that you can see the exact question asked and the response. This is excellent news. Thanks to you, Henk and the OS. Regards David I would like to thank the Ordnance Survey for their kind consideration and the speed in which they were able to give a response. Regards, Michael Collinson License Working Group ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 04/07/11 13:53, Michael Collinson wrote: Good news. I hope that helps a number of UK contributors who have been uncertain as to whether they can accept the new contributor terms because their contributions are derived in part from OS OpenData. Unless you have used Code-Point Open data, unequivocally, yes you can. Good news indeed! Thank you all for your efforts! -- Chris Jones, SUCS Admin http://sucs.org ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 04/07/2011 13:53, Michael Collinson wrote: Good news. Indeed, very good news. Thank you to all those involved in getting this sorted. I obviously misinterpreted the post-code data, was unaware that the RM had any of their own data in it. I thought that OS had given them that database to use. Cheers Dave F. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and ODbL OK
On 4 July 2011 13:53, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: I am now pleased to announce that the licensing group of the Ordnance Survey has explicitly considered any licensing conflict between their license and ODbL and has no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0. At the moment, this excludes Code-Point Open, (postcode) data since they are awaiting a response from Royal Mail who have rights in that dataset. That's fantastic news -- thanks to everyone who was involved with getting this agreement from Ordnance Survey. :-) There are, however, a couple of points with regard to OS OpenData that I think still need to be addressed: 1/ The statement from OS mentions the Open Database License (ODbL), but not Database Contents License (DbCL). I believe that the plan is to release OSM under the combination ODbL+DbCL. ODbL explicitly doesn't cover the copyright in individual database items, relying instead on another license for those [1]. So presumably we also need confirmation from Ordnance Survey that they're happy for their content to be distributed under DbCL (or at least under the ODbL+DbCL combination). 2/ Clarification on the interpretation of the contributor terms. Since Michael Collinson's earlier post to this list [2], it appears from the LWG minutes that LWG has backed away from confirming this as an official policy. (A draft statement was considered but not adopted on 21st June [3], and nothing further was mentioned about it at the following LWG meeting [4].) Two messages I've sent to OSMF asking for confirmation that this is their official interpretation have also gone unanswered. I appreciate that this clarification of the CTs may be a legally delicate and people may be busy with other things, but it would be good to know how things are progressing here. In particular, are LWG and/or OSMF intending to issue an official statement at some point, and if so what sort of time scale might we expect? Robert. [1] http://www.opendatacommons.org/faq/licenses/#db-versus-contents [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011931.html [3] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_121dzjmk5c5 [4] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_122fxn8g2ck -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
