On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 14:25:14 +0000 SK53 <[email protected]> wrote: > 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).
Taken from that very thread[1]: On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 15:18:25 +0000 Michael Collinson <[email protected]> wrote: > LWG view on use of data in OSM under OS OpenData License: > > Yes: OS OpenData product except CodePoint > > No: CodePoint (a Royal Mail response to Chris Hill needs further > investigation) > > You need to formally ask: Any other dataset published under the OS > OpenData License by other organisations, such as English Heritage, > (or by OS if any). There are also pages on the wiki[2][3] which advise caution when using OS-OGL licensed data from other organisations. > 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. Please try and keep things civil. [1] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-July/015028.html [2] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ordnance_Survey_Opendata [3] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Licensing/Ordnance_Survey_OpenData_License -- Regards, Andy Street _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
