For the sake of clarification: Robert Whittaker's interpretation of the Ordnance Survey Open Government License is not widely accepted in the community.
Overall in the past 3 and a half years we have traced, imported or otherwise derived large quantities of data under this license. Mike Collinson spent considerable time discussing our use of the license with the Ordnance Survey on behalf of the OSM Foundation. In general then we accept data under both the OGL and the OSGB version of the OGL. It is always important to check that the body producing the data understands which rights they can release data, as is shown with the recent alteration of the license for ONS Postcodes<http://mapgubbins.tumblr.com/post/69079667760/the-ons-postcode-directory-open-data-but-which> . As always it is worth noting that surveyed data are better than imports: this is particularly true of footpaths where the local council and OSGB data may be at variance with what is on the ground (as I discovered a while ago in Carmarthenshire). Using Open Data to establish whether an existing mapped path is a ProW is a different matter. Regards, Jerry Clough On 24 January 2014 11:00, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) < [email protected]> wrote: > On 24 January 2014 07:29, Bernard Moore <[email protected]> wrote: > > Norfolk County Council offer Public Rights of Way data on this page :- > > http://maps.norfolk.gov.uk/inspire/ (last row of the NCC block). > > It is issued under Open Government Licence :- > > http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/ … version/2/ > > These open licence terms are all very confusing (open not always meaning > > open). Therefore my question is, can I copy the RoW lines from the WMS > maps > > (which open in JOSM) and use the data in OSM? > > If data is indeed offered for re-use under the Open Government > Licence, then the answer is yes, you can use it in OSM. > > If you read to the end of the OGL, you'll find that it helpfully says: > > "These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution > License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License, both of > which license copyright and database rights. This means that when the > Information is adapted and licensed under either of those licences, > you automatically satisfy the conditions of the OGL when you comply > with the other licence." > > So you can be confident that if you have data under the OGL then you > would have sufficient rights to allow re-distribution under the ODC-By > licence, which in turn implies it's ok for OSM to distribute it under > the ODbL. > > However, there is one potential problem in this specific case -- and > that is whether or not Norfolk CC actually have the rights to > distribute that data under the OGL. The coordinates in the dataset > will almost certainly have been derived from an Ordnance Survey base > map. If that's the case then Ordnance Survey claim IP rights in the > data. While there is a procedure to allow councils to release such > data, OS insists that it's released under OS's own variant of the OGL, > the OS OpenData Licence. Unfortunately, this licence is probably not > compatible with the ODbL, and hence we can't use such data in OSM. See > http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/os-open-data.html and > http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/council-gis.html > > So before making use of the data, it would be good to get > clarification from Norfolk CC about whether they own all the IP rights > to the data and whether they are actually able of offer it under the > OGL. > > If you're interested in Norfolk Rights of Way though, one thing that > we can definitely use in OSM is the set of Definitive Statements that > the council maintains. These aren't restricted by OS's IP rights, and > we have permission to use them under the OGL. See > http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/prow/norfolk/ . > > Robert. > > (On the subject of confusing licences, I've long said the OSM's > Licence Working Group should maintain official lists of "OSM > compatible" and "OSM incompatible" licences that they've reviewed, in > order to save mappers continually having to ask these sorts of > questions and deal with legal interpretations themselves. > Unfortunately, this doesn't deem to have happened yet.) > > -- > Robert Whittaker > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-GB mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb >
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
