> > On the contrary, OS have given explicit permission to distribute their data > under CC-BY. I quote: > > >> This means that you may mix the information with Creative Commons licensed >> content to create a derivative work that can be distributed under any >> Creative >> Commons Attribution 3.0 Licence. >> > This seems pretty unambiguous to me? > > It's true that they have their own licence, the OS OpenData licence, which is > not the same as CC. (Of course it's different - it even has a different > name!) > But that licence gives you the option to distribute derived works under CC-BY. > This is just as good as if OS had picked CC-BY directly. > > Is there some point that I and others are missing? > > It doesn't give explicit permission to distribute under CC-BY, (it actually gives much wider permission), it simply notes that using a CC-BY licence properly works for them. As far as I can see there is only one real condition in the licence - do what you want with the information, but you must give attribution to OS (by a single line of text), and insist that any derived works also give that attribution without misleading people that the work is endorsed by the OS.
Simply put, if OSM puts a line in the relevant places that OSM: Contains Ordnance Survey Data (c) Crown Copyright and database right 2010 then there is no need to worry. The very clear and explicit wording of the OS licence leaves very little to be concerned about with that line in the appropriate places. Without that line, OSM should nto be using OS data in any way. Spenny _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
