Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)

2016-09-09 Thread Luis Villa
Can you elaborate on the second point, Simon? Are you referring to the "third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license" language? If so, I'm afraid they've merely made explicit what is implicit in all licenses - if there is third party material in a work that the open lice

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)

2016-09-09 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
On 9 September 2016 at 18:19, Luis Villa wrote: > Can you elaborate on the second point, Simon? Are you referring to the > "third party rights the Information Provider is not authorised to license" > language? If so, I'm afraid they've merely made explicit what is implicit in > all licenses - if t

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)

2016-09-09 Thread Simon Poole
As Robert has pointed out: the difference is between taking the licence (OGL) as a licence to include stuff you can't licence :-) :-) and the normal case were the Licensor typically would not include material for which they don't have the necessary rights except for honest mistakes and fraud. Nat

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)

2016-09-09 Thread Simon Poole
Am 09.09.2016 um 19:43 schrieb Robert Whittaker (OSM lists): > > There was a case in the UK where (IIRC) house price data was offered > under the UK Open Government Licence (OGL). It turned out later that > the addresses in it had been checked/normalised using a proprietary > address database, an

[OSM-legal-talk] Disclaimers of title in open licenses/OGL [was Re: Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)]

2016-09-09 Thread Luis Villa
[Forking thread title so as to minimize noise for anyone who actually cares about the Peel license ;)] tl;dr: The problem in Robert's example is the UK government, not the license. If real money were at stake for some reason, every well-advised open licensor (including OSM under ODbL) would take e

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Disclaimers of title in open licenses/OGL [was Re: Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)]

2016-09-09 Thread Simon Poole
Am 09.09.2016 um 21:30 schrieb Luis Villa: > ... > If this sort of provenance issue is a real concern, OSM should push > data sources to document and review their processes, and perhaps > consider improving provenance data in the database directly (so that > the problems are easier to fix once id

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0)

2016-09-09 Thread Stewart Russell
On 9 September 2016 at 11:22, Simon Poole wrote: > > I believe it was one of the major issues that openaddresses.uk ran in > to, see > https://www.scribd.com/document_downloads/265440465?extension=pdf&from=embed&source=embed > page 48 and following. Uh oh, so does that mean the UK Postcode data