I don't think your last point is true: Mike was working to ensure data created under cc-by-sa could be similarly moved over to ODbL (a different matter). The relevant point is in this email <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-July/011998.html>to the list:
>* 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 license and ODbL and "has no objections to geodata derived in part *> * from OS OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0."* I see no reference to any special permission. In any case such permission is not the Ordnance Survey's to grant: they generate and exploit the data but are not its owners as can be seen by the Crown Copyright statement. You (Robert) continue to push this point, but you asked the OSGB a leading question, which was bound to get the answer you wanted. Of course the OSGB have plenty of reasons as to why they dont want data they create in OSM, but they are, at best, not a disinterested party. Furthermore if you ask a lawyer "might there be problems with X" the answer is "YES". I for one prefer to rely on the formal and informal approaches taken on behalf of OSMF by the LWG. I also defer to the experience of Mike who has a long experience of running & managing organisations generating and exploiting a variety of Intellectual Property RIghts. (This position also accords with my own experience working with a portfolio of IPR issues at a major electronics company along one of the firm's specialist lawyers in the field). Lastly this theme was done to death only 6 months ago ( http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-July/015022.html). I find it rather tedious that instead of giving a straightforward answer to a straightforward question as to what the OSMG/LWG/OSB GB community consensus is, we continually hear about your own interpretation. Can I ask you (Robert) to consider the question asked by the original poster. By all means say "OSMf/LWG consider that OSGB OGL data can be included in OSM, but I personally avoid doing so ..." Jerry On 24 January 2014 12:58, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) < [email protected]> wrote: > On 24 January 2014 11:32, SK53 <[email protected]> wrote: > > For the sake of clarification: > > > > Robert Whittaker's interpretation of the Ordnance Survey Open Government > > License is not widely accepted in the community. > > In the light of OS's own interpretation that the OS-ODL is > incompatible with the ODbL, and also the OSM Licence Working Group's > view that (with the exception of some specific OS OpenData Products > where we have explicit permission) the OS-ODL is not sufficient on its > own to allow data to be used in OSM, I don't see that the community > has much choice but to accept it. > > Please read http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/os-open-data.html for the full > detail. > > > 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. > > We're able to make use of the OS OpenData products (with the exception > of CodePoint Open) because Mike Collinson and LWG got special > permission from OS for us to do so, not because it was found that the > OS-ODL was compatible. So we're using that data under the separate > permission, rather than under the OS-ODL. The permission only extends > to the those specific OS OpenData products, and does not cover any > other data that may be licensed (by OS or others) under the OS-ODL. > > Robert. > > -- > 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
