This is something Kevin Farrugia might be able to help us with On Sep 8, 2016 6:12 PM, "Stewart Russell" <[email protected]> wrote:
> I checked on OSM-legal. Would probably work if we had a statement from > Peel agreeing to inclusion. As is, it's likely not compatible. > > Stewart > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: "Simon Poole" <[email protected]> > Date: Sep 8, 2016 13:57 > Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence compatibility: Open Data Licence for > The Regional Municipality of Peel (Version 1.0) > To: <[email protected]> > Cc: > > > > > 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 fulfils the conditions). > > > > All variants of the OGL have a further issue in that you actually have > to verify that the Licensor has the necessary rights to licence -all- the > material in their dataset to you on these terms. This might seem like a > theoretical hurdle invented by me, alas it is not, as some of our UK > colleagues can testify. > > > > Simon > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-ca mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-ca mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
