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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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'
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
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
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
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
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
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:
- 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
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,
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
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
32 matches
Mail list logo
