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
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
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
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
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
The additional terms are "a bit of" a problem, however might be
surmountable if they are willing to give us a statement specifically for
the inclusion in OSM (along the lines of that they agree that the
inclusion of the data in OpenStreetMap and distribution on terms of an
open and free licence fu
