Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils Any path not on these documents by 2026 will no longer be a right of way. We are hoping to get some of these released under a compatible license so that we can help identify missing paths. If we can get the data under an OpenData license... What tagging should/is being done to identify which ones are in the council's map (or not in it)? Quickly looking at Durham city, there are several footpaths and alleyways that are in OSM but not in the Council map, and vice-versa. I could do a lot with memory from my armchair. -- Gregory o...@livingwithdragons.com http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
I am in Oxfordshire where we have permission to use the definitive statement under OGL (but not the map). I have used the key prow_ref to add the council reference number for several paths and tagged them with designation=public_footpath (or public_bridleway if it's a bridleway) . See [1]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref On Tue, 4 Feb 2014, at 01:10 PM, Gregory wrote: [2]http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils Any path not on these documents by 2026 will no longer be a right of way. We are hoping to get some of these released under a compatible license so that we can help identify missing paths. If we can get the data under an OpenData license... What tagging should/is being done to identify which ones are in the council's map (or not in it)? Quickly looking at Durham city, there are several footpaths and alleyways that are in OSM but not in the Council map, and vice-versa. I could do a lot with memory from my armchair. -- Gregory [3]o...@livingwithdragons.com [4]http://www.livingwithdragons.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list [5]Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org [6]https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb References 1. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Key:prow_ref 2. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils 3. mailto:o...@livingwithdragons.com 4. http://www.livingwithdragons.com/ 5. mailto:Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 6. https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
On 25 January 2014 18:46, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: Of course it would be much better if everything was released under plain OGL, Indeed. Coincidently, it seems that OS is currently running a survey on the future of OS OpenData. So if anyone would like to let them know that it would be better if they used the standard OGL in place of their own licence, completing the survey might be a good opportunity to do so: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/2014/01/help-us-shape-the-future-of-os-opendata/ BTW: To return to the question that started this thread, I've been in touch with Norfolk CC, and they've confirmed that they made a mistake with the licence description originally. As I suspected, the data should only have been made available under the OS OpenData Licence. The pages at http://maps.norfolk.gov.uk/inspire/ and http://data.gov.uk/dataset/norfolk-public-rights-of-way have now been corrected. It's a shame, but at least we know where we stand now. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
Quite agree, this was exactly what I did when I completed the survey. Failure to get the licence conditions correct shows that its not just users who find the licences confusing. On 30 January 2014 13:47, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: On 25 January 2014 18:46, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: Of course it would be much better if everything was released under plain OGL, Indeed. Coincidently, it seems that OS is currently running a survey on the future of OS OpenData. So if anyone would like to let them know that it would be better if they used the standard OGL in place of their own licence, completing the survey might be a good opportunity to do so: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/2014/01/help-us-shape-the-future-of-os-opendata/ BTW: To return to the question that started this thread, I've been in touch with Norfolk CC, and they've confirmed that they made a mistake with the licence description originally. As I suspected, the data should only have been made available under the OS OpenData Licence. The pages at http://maps.norfolk.gov.uk/inspire/ and http://data.gov.uk/dataset/norfolk-public-rights-of-way have now been corrected. It's a shame, but at least we know where we stand now. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
Hi All, Okay, I'm going to take a different approach and look at the original intention of the OS OpenData initiative (ignoring OpenStreetMap). Not that this relates to the original OS OpenData product. A) Following public consultation [1]: Central government has negotiated a commercial agreement with Ordnance Survey for the licence for OS OpenData and for its ongoing maintenance. As set out above, this licence will allow the data to be used and re-used for free by the public, including for commercial use. --Quote from paragraph 3.14 of the consultation government response [2]. B) From the same document (paragraph 3.8): The modified package of datasets to be released has been named OS OpenData(tm). This will provide access to a set of Ordnance Survey products free of charge and without restrictions on use and re-use. C) The Ordnance Survey are financially compensated for this: Our revenue recognition policy for OS OpenData has resulted in £20m of new revenue in 2010-11, which comprises a fee for the data and a service element to reflect the additional annual cost of serving a wider customer base, including royalties and transaction costs. -- Quote from page 10 of OS's Annual Report and Accounts 2010-11 [3] D) Current confusion over the exact licence has been raised with the regulator, the Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI), and with the Open Data User Group (ODUG). ODUG has put forward a paper requesting that the licence be simplified (i.e. to adopt the standard OGL). Please continue to file complaints with OPSI. E) Whilst we are waiting for this, I suggest that the best next step is to put a FOI request in for a copy of the commercial agreement between Central government (DCLG) and the OS to see if their OS OpenData licence is in breach of this agreement. Any volunteers? Regards, Rob [1] Policy options for geographic information from Ordnance Survey [2] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/government-response-os-consultation.pdf [3] http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc1012/hc11/1188/1188.pdf ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
Rob, I think you just did ;-) Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 25/01/2014 16:58, Rob Nickerson wrote: Any volunteers? Regards, Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
On 24 January 2014 11:00, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: If you read to the end of the OGL, you'll find that it helpfully says: These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License, both of which license copyright and database rights. This means that when the Information is adapted and licensed under either of those licences, you automatically satisfy the conditions of the OGL when you comply with the other licence. So you can be confident that if you have data under the OGL then you would have sufficient rights to allow re-distribution under the ODC-By licence, which in turn implies it's ok for OSM to distribute it under the ODbL. One thing that confuses me is how different licenses that require attribution can be compatible, or even how a work under one license requiring attribution can be re-used under that same license. The OGL requires the attribution 'Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v2.0' (or a more specific attribution). Openstreetmap requires '© OpenStreetMap contributors'. So if someone re-uses Openstreetmap data that contains OGL data and only attributes it with '© OpenStreetMap contributors', would that not be a violation of the license of the OGL data, because the government is not attributed? Can someone clarify that? Kind regards, Matthijs ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
2014-01-25 Matthijs Melissen i...@matthijsmelissen.nl: On 24 January 2014 11:00, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: If you read to the end of the OGL, you'll find that it helpfully says: These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License, both of which license copyright and database rights. This means that when the Information is adapted and licensed under either of those licences, you automatically satisfy the conditions of the OGL when you comply with the other licence. So you can be confident that if you have data under the OGL then you would have sufficient rights to allow re-distribution under the ODC-By licence, which in turn implies it's ok for OSM to distribute it under the ODbL. One thing that confuses me is how different licenses that require attribution can be compatible, or even how a work under one license requiring attribution can be re-used under that same license. The OGL requires the attribution 'Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v2.0' (or a more specific attribution). Openstreetmap requires '© OpenStreetMap contributors'. So if someone re-uses Openstreetmap data that contains OGL data and only attributes it with '© OpenStreetMap contributors', would that not be a violation of the license of the OGL data, because the government is not attributed? Can someone clarify that? In the example you give, the OGL means that OpenStreetMap has to attribute the government, but the OGL does not require that OpenStreetMap should force that same requirement onto anyone who uses OpenStreetMap data. The requirement to attribute the government is not inherited. Similarly, the ODbL requires that if I produce a pretty picture made from OpenStreetMap data, I have to attribute OpenStreetMap, but I do not have to force any users of my picture to also attribute OpenStreetMap. Best Dan ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
I'm no expert, in fact I'm worse than an amateur commenting on legal matters, I'm an amateur applying common sense to legal matters, but here goes! ;-) I would have thought that licensing cascades down, so as long as OSM attributes OGL then any other uses of OSM are inferring an attribution to OGL! Otherwise when we receive our Oscar instead of just thanking our Parents and God, we'd have to thank our parents and grand-parents and great gran-parents and great great grand-parents ad infinitum and God! Which means we'd never get to thank God! Then where would we be ;-) Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 25/01/2014 17:09, Matthijs Melissen wrote: On 24 January 2014 11:00, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: If you read to the end of the OGL, you'll find that it helpfully says: These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License, both of which license copyright and database rights. This means that when the Information is adapted and licensed under either of those licences, you automatically satisfy the conditions of the OGL when you comply with the other licence. So you can be confident that if you have data under the OGL then you would have sufficient rights to allow re-distribution under the ODC-By licence, which in turn implies it's ok for OSM to distribute it under the ODbL. One thing that confuses me is how different licenses that require attribution can be compatible, or even how a work under one license requiring attribution can be re-used under that same license. The OGL requires the attribution 'Contains public sector information licensed under the Open Government Licence v2.0' (or a more specific attribution). Openstreetmap requires '© OpenStreetMap contributors'. So if someone re-uses Openstreetmap data that contains OGL data and only attributes it with '© OpenStreetMap contributors', would that not be a violation of the license of the OGL data, because the government is not attributed? Can someone clarify that? Kind regards, Matthijs ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
Agree, we also have both OGL 1.0 (e.g., Natural England) and OGL 2.0 (e.g, OSGB). I've been reading the licenses again, and I think the main sticking point is the *viral attribution* clause. Thus it may be that we need to check that Natural England, Norwich County Council etc. are happy with whatever the OSGB agreed to regarding viral attribution (and presumably the Royal Mail did not). The other point is *sublicensing *of data within the OGL data. The local government authority, QUANGO etc, should have checked with OSGB *BEFORE *releasing data under the OSGB OGL. I presume that this is because some datasets contain various quantities of MasterMap data, which they are not entitled to license. (Check the Land Registry INSPIRE Parcel data OGL termshttp://www.landregistry.gov.uk/market-trend-data/inspire/inspire-faq#i23for an example where this more or less eliminates any of our considered uses of the data). Thus it is the OSGB who have to make a judgement about whether the other body's release of geodata under OGL may impair what OSGB do with MasterMap (not just sales, but VARs and other services built round MasterMap). I know this is what Nottingham City Council did with their footpath data. Also note that notionally not all of a dataset contains OSGB data (for instance footpath names and identifiers contain no OSGB data). What I agree is very important to check is whether the releasing body has consulted with the OSGB and that they have got the basic license terms right (see ONS reference before). Jonathan mentioned good faith, I'm not sure that this is works terribly well with copyright stuff. So to recap, these seem to me to be the key questions which we need to ask or be satisfied about: - Which data (attributes) in a data set belong solely to the body licensing the data? - Which data (and attributes) in a data set contain, belong, or are derived from another data set not owned by the licensor? (this is mainly OGSB data in our case) - Has the licensor sought the opinion, permission, etc of any components in the data set which are not wholly owned by them? - What restrictions are implied by any sub-licensed data (see LR Inspire)? - Has the licensor applied the correct license, given the source and content of their data set? - Is the licensor willing to vary 'viral' attribution terms for insubstantial extracts produced works (as per ODbL 1.0). Of course it would be much better if everything was released under plain OGL, but we are moving to a point, where, for footpaths, in particular, councils think that providing a file to rowmaps is all they need to do. I think this slapdash approach to providing data is a more significant problem than the nitty gritty of licenses. As these license issues will be outside the normal skills of council/QUANGO lawyers it will continue to be cheaper to say NO. Nottingham explicitly adopted its Open Data project to reduce admin costs, so I'm surprised that these organisations are leaving so much ambiguity in how they do things so as to invite expensive queries. As in an Agatha Christie, it pays to ask where's the money?. Valuable data sets such as PAF or MasterMap land parcel boundaries will be defended in one way or another (not Open, restrictions, onerous attribution terms, avoiding answering questions). Others are less likely to be problematic (including footpaths as these are less likely to be 'snapped' to MasterMap features, and many natural datasets because the land is less valuable and therefore less likely to generate mapping revenue). Personally I don't want to make a huge amount of usage from these datasets: I'm definitely interested in attributes such as footpath references, and I'd like to have accurate boundaries for things like National Parks, Access Land, SSSIs and other Nature Reserves. However in the main I feel that we as a whole do a better job by using these things as a guide for mapping. Of course the ODbL also creates problems because we can't release any mashups of footpath data from OSGB OGL sources and OSM (for instance as a Garmin IMG file): the resulting DB has to be released under ODbL. Sorry this has ended up as a mishmash of thoughts after the more germane couple of points. What we really need to do is to create some standard letters with the critical text as boilerplate and get emailing these govt bodies. Regards, Jerry On 24 January 2014 17:47, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.comwrote: You need to formally ask: Any other dataset published under the OS OpenData License by other organisations, such as English Heritage, (or by OS if any). is unclear: ask who? Ask the organisation doing the publishing (eg Norfolk CC), or OS? My impression of the Mike Collinson dialogue was that OS basically agreed that *indirect* use of their mapbase in this fashion as the context for someone else's data was OK, but that the someone else also had to agree, not that OS had to be
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
2014-01-25 SK53 sk53@gmail.com: Agree, we also have both OGL 1.0 (e.g., Natural England) and OGL 2.0 (e.g, OSGB). I've been reading the licenses again, and I think the main sticking point is the viral attribution clause. [...snip...] I don't want to divert from Jerry's main points, but I just want to make sure no-one misreads his reply the same way I just did. The OGL does not have any viral attribution clause - which happens to be the point I was making in my reply to Matthijs earlier today! It's the Ordnance Survey's version of OGL which has a viral attribution clause. I agree with Jerry's analysis, but I note that there's no _viral_ attribution when using data that is under the standard OGL (and is uncontaminated by any second-hand OSGB content). Best Dan ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
Hi Bernard, Welcome to the GB Mailing List. I believe the simple answer is yes. There is a wiki page which you may have already found which lists which councils have released data which we can use. Norfolk is on that list. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/UK_local_councils That links to a page on the Norfolk CC web site explaining the rights. http://www.norfolk.gov.uk/Leisure_and_culture/Public_Rights_of_Way/Map/index.htm Jason (UniEagle) From: Bernard Moore Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 7:29 AM To: talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Subject: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence Hello, My first post here so apologies if anything is wrong. I initially asked this question in the OSM UK Forum but got no response. Norfolk County Council offer Public Rights of Way data on this page :- http://maps.norfolk.gov.uk/inspire/ (last row of the NCC block). It is issued under Open Government Licence :- http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ … version/2/ These open licence terms are all very confusing (open not always meaning open). Therefore my question is, can I copy the RoW lines from the WMS maps (which open in JOSM) and use the data in OSM? Regards Bernard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
On 24 January 2014 07:29, Bernard Moore bcmo...@ntlworld.com wrote: Norfolk County Council offer Public Rights of Way data on this page :- http://maps.norfolk.gov.uk/inspire/ (last row of the NCC block). It is issued under Open Government Licence :- http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ … version/2/ These open licence terms are all very confusing (open not always meaning open). Therefore my question is, can I copy the RoW lines from the WMS maps (which open in JOSM) and use the data in OSM? If data is indeed offered for re-use under the Open Government Licence, then the answer is yes, you can use it in OSM. If you read to the end of the OGL, you'll find that it helpfully says: These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License, both of which license copyright and database rights. This means that when the Information is adapted and licensed under either of those licences, you automatically satisfy the conditions of the OGL when you comply with the other licence. So you can be confident that if you have data under the OGL then you would have sufficient rights to allow re-distribution under the ODC-By licence, which in turn implies it's ok for OSM to distribute it under the ODbL. However, there is one potential problem in this specific case -- and that is whether or not Norfolk CC actually have the rights to distribute that data under the OGL. The coordinates in the dataset will almost certainly have been derived from an Ordnance Survey base map. If that's the case then Ordnance Survey claim IP rights in the data. While there is a procedure to allow councils to release such data, OS insists that it's released under OS's own variant of the OGL, the OS OpenData Licence. Unfortunately, this licence is probably not compatible with the ODbL, and hence we can't use such data in OSM. See http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/os-open-data.html and http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-gis.html So before making use of the data, it would be good to get clarification from Norfolk CC about whether they own all the IP rights to the data and whether they are actually able of offer it under the OGL. If you're interested in Norfolk Rights of Way though, one thing that we can definitely use in OSM is the set of Definitive Statements that the council maintains. These aren't restricted by OS's IP rights, and we have permission to use them under the OGL. See http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/norfolk/ . Robert. (On the subject of confusing licences, I've long said the OSM's Licence Working Group should maintain official lists of OSM compatible and OSM incompatible licences that they've reviewed, in order to save mappers continually having to ask these sorts of questions and deal with legal interpretations themselves. Unfortunately, this doesn't deem to have happened yet.) -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
Hi Robert, Thanks for that extra info about licensing. I knew OS were at the route of most licensing issues to do with maps of the UK but not in what way, so that clears that up for me. However, my view would be that if a County Council has issued data under a license that we recognise as allowing us to use for our purposes, then that is all we need. Querying the council as to whether they actually have the rights to give away said rights is unnecessary, confusing for them and us and likely to just breed more confusion over the issue. Even if Norfolk don't have the rights to give them away, that's their problem. We acted in good faith that the OGL was valid. Jonathan http://bigfatfrog67.me On 24/01/2014 11:00, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote: On 24 January 2014 07:29, Bernard Moore bcmo...@ntlworld.com wrote: Norfolk County Council offer Public Rights of Way data on this page :- http://maps.norfolk.gov.uk/inspire/ (last row of the NCC block). It is issued under Open Government Licence :- http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ … version/2/ These open licence terms are all very confusing (open not always meaning open). Therefore my question is, can I copy the RoW lines from the WMS maps (which open in JOSM) and use the data in OSM? If data is indeed offered for re-use under the Open Government Licence, then the answer is yes, you can use it in OSM. If you read to the end of the OGL, you'll find that it helpfully says: These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License, both of which license copyright and database rights. This means that when the Information is adapted and licensed under either of those licences, you automatically satisfy the conditions of the OGL when you comply with the other licence. So you can be confident that if you have data under the OGL then you would have sufficient rights to allow re-distribution under the ODC-By licence, which in turn implies it's ok for OSM to distribute it under the ODbL. However, there is one potential problem in this specific case -- and that is whether or not Norfolk CC actually have the rights to distribute that data under the OGL. The coordinates in the dataset will almost certainly have been derived from an Ordnance Survey base map. If that's the case then Ordnance Survey claim IP rights in the data. While there is a procedure to allow councils to release such data, OS insists that it's released under OS's own variant of the OGL, the OS OpenData Licence. Unfortunately, this licence is probably not compatible with the ODbL, and hence we can't use such data in OSM. See http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/os-open-data.html and http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-gis.html So before making use of the data, it would be good to get clarification from Norfolk CC about whether they own all the IP rights to the data and whether they are actually able of offer it under the OGL. If you're interested in Norfolk Rights of Way though, one thing that we can definitely use in OSM is the set of Definitive Statements that the council maintains. These aren't restricted by OS's IP rights, and we have permission to use them under the OGL. See http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/norfolk/ . Robert. (On the subject of confusing licences, I've long said the OSM's Licence Working Group should maintain official lists of OSM compatible and OSM incompatible licences that they've reviewed, in order to save mappers continually having to ask these sorts of questions and deal with legal interpretations themselves. Unfortunately, this doesn't deem to have happened yet.) ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
For the sake of clarification: Robert Whittaker's interpretation of the Ordnance Survey Open Government License is not widely accepted in the community. Overall in the past 3 and a half years we have traced, imported or otherwise derived large quantities of data under this license. Mike Collinson spent considerable time discussing our use of the license with the Ordnance Survey on behalf of the OSM Foundation. In general then we accept data under both the OGL and the OSGB version of the OGL. It is always important to check that the body producing the data understands which rights they can release data, as is shown with the recent alteration of the license for ONS Postcodeshttp://mapgubbins.tumblr.com/post/69079667760/the-ons-postcode-directory-open-data-but-which . As always it is worth noting that surveyed data are better than imports: this is particularly true of footpaths where the local council and OSGB data may be at variance with what is on the ground (as I discovered a while ago in Carmarthenshire). Using Open Data to establish whether an existing mapped path is a ProW is a different matter. Regards, Jerry Clough On 24 January 2014 11:00, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 January 2014 07:29, Bernard Moore bcmo...@ntlworld.com wrote: Norfolk County Council offer Public Rights of Way data on this page :- http://maps.norfolk.gov.uk/inspire/ (last row of the NCC block). It is issued under Open Government Licence :- http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ … version/2/ These open licence terms are all very confusing (open not always meaning open). Therefore my question is, can I copy the RoW lines from the WMS maps (which open in JOSM) and use the data in OSM? If data is indeed offered for re-use under the Open Government Licence, then the answer is yes, you can use it in OSM. If you read to the end of the OGL, you'll find that it helpfully says: These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License, both of which license copyright and database rights. This means that when the Information is adapted and licensed under either of those licences, you automatically satisfy the conditions of the OGL when you comply with the other licence. So you can be confident that if you have data under the OGL then you would have sufficient rights to allow re-distribution under the ODC-By licence, which in turn implies it's ok for OSM to distribute it under the ODbL. However, there is one potential problem in this specific case -- and that is whether or not Norfolk CC actually have the rights to distribute that data under the OGL. The coordinates in the dataset will almost certainly have been derived from an Ordnance Survey base map. If that's the case then Ordnance Survey claim IP rights in the data. While there is a procedure to allow councils to release such data, OS insists that it's released under OS's own variant of the OGL, the OS OpenData Licence. Unfortunately, this licence is probably not compatible with the ODbL, and hence we can't use such data in OSM. See http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/os-open-data.html and http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-gis.html So before making use of the data, it would be good to get clarification from Norfolk CC about whether they own all the IP rights to the data and whether they are actually able of offer it under the OGL. If you're interested in Norfolk Rights of Way though, one thing that we can definitely use in OSM is the set of Definitive Statements that the council maintains. These aren't restricted by OS's IP rights, and we have permission to use them under the OGL. See http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/norfolk/ . Robert. (On the subject of confusing licences, I've long said the OSM's Licence Working Group should maintain official lists of OSM compatible and OSM incompatible licences that they've reviewed, in order to save mappers continually having to ask these sorts of questions and deal with legal interpretations themselves. Unfortunately, this doesn't deem to have happened yet.) -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 11:32:50 + SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: For the sake of clarification: Robert Whittaker's interpretation of the Ordnance Survey Open Government License is not widely accepted in the community. Overall in the past 3 and a half years we have traced, imported or otherwise derived large quantities of data under this license. Mike Collinson spent considerable time discussing our use of the license with the Ordnance Survey on behalf of the OSM Foundation. AIUI that agreement only covers datasets released by the Ordnance Survey (with the exception of Code-Point Open), it does not cover other organisations that choose to release data under the OS-OGL. Without further clarification you cannot be certain why an organisation chose OS-OGL over the OGL and if they consent to us using their data in that way. In the case of Norfolk I'd be inclined to contact them to ask for a clarification of what the licence actually is; their website has it listed as OS-OGL but data.gov.uk has it listed as OGL. As always it is worth noting that surveyed data are better than imports: this is particularly true of footpaths where the local council and OSGB data may be at variance with what is on the ground (as I discovered a while ago in Carmarthenshire). Using Open Data to establish whether an existing mapped path is a ProW is a different matter. +1 -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
On 24 January 2014 11:32, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: For the sake of clarification: Robert Whittaker's interpretation of the Ordnance Survey Open Government License is not widely accepted in the community. In the light of OS's own interpretation that the OS-ODL is incompatible with the ODbL, and also the OSM Licence Working Group's view that (with the exception of some specific OS OpenData Products where we have explicit permission) the OS-ODL is not sufficient on its own to allow data to be used in OSM, I don't see that the community has much choice but to accept it. Please read http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/os-open-data.html for the full detail. Overall in the past 3 and a half years we have traced, imported or otherwise derived large quantities of data under this license. Mike Collinson spent considerable time discussing our use of the license with the Ordnance Survey on behalf of the OSM Foundation. We're able to make use of the OS OpenData products (with the exception of CodePoint Open) because Mike Collinson and LWG got special permission from OS for us to do so, not because it was found that the OS-ODL was compatible. So we're using that data under the separate permission, rather than under the OS-ODL. The permission only extends to the those specific OS OpenData products, and does not cover any other data that may be licensed (by OS or others) under the OS-ODL. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
I don't think your last point is true: Mike was working to ensure data created under cc-by-sa could be similarly moved over to ODbL (a different matter). The relevant point is in this email https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-July/011998.htmlto the list: * 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.* I see no reference to any special permission. In any case such permission is not the Ordnance Survey's to grant: they generate and exploit the data but are not its owners as can be seen by the Crown Copyright statement. You (Robert) continue to push this point, but you asked the OSGB a leading question, which was bound to get the answer you wanted. Of course the OSGB have plenty of reasons as to why they dont want data they create in OSM, but they are, at best, not a disinterested party. Furthermore if you ask a lawyer might there be problems with X the answer is YES. I for one prefer to rely on the formal and informal approaches taken on behalf of OSMF by the LWG. I also defer to the experience of Mike who has a long experience of running managing organisations generating and exploiting a variety of Intellectual Property RIghts. (This position also accords with my own experience working with a portfolio of IPR issues at a major electronics company along one of the firm's specialist lawyers in the field). Lastly this theme was done to death only 6 months ago ( http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-July/015022.html). I find it rather tedious that instead of giving a straightforward answer to a straightforward question as to what the OSMG/LWG/OSB GB community consensus is, we continually hear about your own interpretation. Can I ask you (Robert) to consider the question asked by the original poster. By all means say OSMf/LWG consider that OSGB OGL data can be included in OSM, but I personally avoid doing so ... Jerry On 24 January 2014 12:58, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 January 2014 11:32, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: For the sake of clarification: Robert Whittaker's interpretation of the Ordnance Survey Open Government License is not widely accepted in the community. In the light of OS's own interpretation that the OS-ODL is incompatible with the ODbL, and also the OSM Licence Working Group's view that (with the exception of some specific OS OpenData Products where we have explicit permission) the OS-ODL is not sufficient on its own to allow data to be used in OSM, I don't see that the community has much choice but to accept it. Please read http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/os-open-data.html for the full detail. Overall in the past 3 and a half years we have traced, imported or otherwise derived large quantities of data under this license. Mike Collinson spent considerable time discussing our use of the license with the Ordnance Survey on behalf of the OSM Foundation. We're able to make use of the OS OpenData products (with the exception of CodePoint Open) because Mike Collinson and LWG got special permission from OS for us to do so, not because it was found that the OS-ODL was compatible. So we're using that data under the separate permission, rather than under the OS-ODL. The permission only extends to the those specific OS OpenData products, and does not cover any other data that may be licensed (by OS or others) under the OS-ODL. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:25:14 + SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: I for one prefer to rely on the formal and informal approaches taken on behalf of OSMF by the LWG. I also defer to the experience of Mike who has a long experience of running managing organisations generating and exploiting a variety of Intellectual Property RIghts. (This position also accords with my own experience working with a portfolio of IPR issues at a major electronics company along one of the firm's specialist lawyers in the field). Lastly this theme was done to death only 6 months ago ( http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-July/015022.html). Taken from that very thread[1]: On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:18:25 + Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: LWG view on use of data in OSM under OS OpenData License: Yes: OS OpenData product except CodePoint No: CodePoint (a Royal Mail response to Chris Hill needs further investigation) You need to formally ask: Any other dataset published under the OS OpenData License by other organisations, such as English Heritage, (or by OS if any). There are also pages on the wiki[2][3] which advise caution when using OS-OGL licensed data from other organisations. I find it rather tedious that instead of giving a straightforward answer to a straightforward question as to what the OSMG/LWG/OSB GB community consensus is, we continually hear about your own interpretation. Please try and keep things civil. [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-July/015028.html [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Licensing/Ordnance_Survey_OpenData_License -- Regards, Andy Street ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
On 24 January 2014 14:25, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: By all means say OSMf/LWG consider that OSGB OGL data can be included in OSM, but I personally avoid doing so ... But as far I I know, that would be incorrect. According to Michael Collinson's post at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-July/015028.html LWG view on use of data in OSM under OS OpenData License: Yes: OS OpenData product except CodePoint No: CodePoint (a Royal Mail response to Chris Hill needs further investigation) You need to formally ask: Any other dataset published under the OS OpenData License by other organisations, such as English Heritage, (or by OS if any). So unless something has changed since then that I'm not aware of, LWG consider that data licensed under the OS OpenData Licence *cannot* be included in OSM, unless it's either one of the specific OS OpenData products (except CodePoint Open) or you formally ask for permission from the rights holders. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
You need to formally ask: Any other dataset published under the OS OpenData License by other organisations, such as English Heritage, (or by OS if any). is unclear: ask who? Ask the organisation doing the publishing (eg Norfolk CC), or OS? My impression of the Mike Collinson dialogue was that OS basically agreed that *indirect* use of their mapbase in this fashion as the context for someone else's data was OK, but that the someone else also had to agree, not that OS had to be asked each and every time. Robert's interpretation is that OS have to be asked every time. Perhaps the wiki text could be made more explicit. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 January 2014 14:25, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: By all means say OSMf/LWG consider that OSGB OGL data can be included in OSM, but I personally avoid doing so ... But as far I I know, that would be incorrect. According to Michael Collinson's post at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-July/015028.html LWG view on use of data in OSM under OS OpenData License: Yes: OS OpenData product except CodePoint No: CodePoint (a Royal Mail response to Chris Hill needs further investigation) You need to formally ask: Any other dataset published under the OS OpenData License by other organisations, such as English Heritage, (or by OS if any). So unless something has changed since then that I'm not aware of, LWG consider that data licensed under the OS OpenData Licence *cannot* be included in OSM, unless it's either one of the specific OS OpenData products (except CodePoint Open) or you formally ask for permission from the rights holders. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
FWIW I have certainly had confirmation, more than once, that the someone else i.e Hampshire County Council agree and they appear to have got confirmation from the OS too. This is an OpenData licence set. I think some unambiguous consensus on this needs to be made clear by the OSMF or whoever - as everyone seems to say different things which leaves many confused. I will still admit to having no idea as to whether I can use the HCC data or not - and I've been contributing to OSM for 8 years! Nick -Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: - To: talk-gb Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org From: Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com Date: 24/01/2014 05:48PM Subject: Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence You need to formally ask: Any other dataset published under the OS OpenData License by other organisations, such as English Heritage, (or by OS if any). is unclear: ask who? Ask the organisation doing the publishing (eg Norfolk CC), or OS? My impression of the Mike Collinson dialogue was that OS basically agreed that *indirect* use of their mapbase in this fashion as the context for someone else's data was OK, but that the someone else also had to agree, not that OS had to be asked each and every time. Robert's interpretation is that OS have to be asked every time. Perhaps the wiki text could be made more explicit. On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com wrote: On 24 January 2014 14:25, SK53 sk53@gmail.com wrote: By all means say OSMf/LWG consider that OSGB OGL data can be included in OSM, but I personally avoid doing so ... But as far I I know, that would be incorrect. According to Michael Collinson's post at https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-July/015028.html LWG view on use of data in OSM under OS OpenData License: Yes: OS OpenData product except CodePoint No: CodePoint (a Royal Mail response to Chris Hill needs further investigation) You need to formally ask: Any other dataset published under the OS OpenData License by other organisations, such as English Heritage, (or by OS if any). So unless something has changed since then that I'm not aware of, LWG consider that data licensed under the OS OpenData Licence *cannot* be included in OSM, unless it's either one of the specific OS OpenData products (except CodePoint Open) or you formally ask for permission from the rights holders. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
+1 http://bigfatfrog67.me On 24/01/2014 17:53, Nick Whitelegg wrote: I think some unambiguous consensus on this needs to be made clear by the OSMF or whoever - as everyone seems to say different things which leaves many confused. I will still admit to having no idea as to whether I can use the HCC data or not - and I've been contributing to OSM for 8 years! Nick ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence
Hello, My first post here so apologies if anything is wrong. I initially asked this question in the OSM UK Forum but got no response. Norfolk County Council offer Public Rights of Way data on this page :- http://maps.norfolk.gov.uk/inspire/ (last row of the NCC block). It is issued under Open Government Licence :- http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ ... version/2/ http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ These open licence terms are all very confusing (open not always meaning open). Therefore my question is, can I copy the RoW lines from the WMS maps (which open in JOSM) and use the data in OSM? Regards Bernard ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
