Thanks for looking into it Stewart. Are there any examples from other exemptions that I can look at when I bring it up?
On Sep 8, 2016 6:20 PM, "James" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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
