Dan thanks for making this clear: it is the OSGB OGL one I was referring to.
On 25 January 2014 19:40, Dan S <[email protected]> wrote: > 2014-01-25 SK53 <[email protected]>: > > Agree, we also have both OGL 1.0 (e.g., Natural England) and OGL 2.0 > (e.g, > > OSGB). > > > > I've been reading the licenses again, and I think the main sticking > point is > > the viral attribution clause. > > [...snip...] > > I don't want to divert from Jerry's main points, but I just want to > make sure no-one misreads his reply the same way I just did. The OGL > does not have any viral attribution clause - which happens to be the > point I was making in my reply to Matthijs earlier today! It's the > Ordnance Survey's version of OGL which has a viral attribution clause. > I agree with Jerry's analysis, but I note that there's no _viral_ > attribution when using data that is under the standard OGL (and is > uncontaminated by any second-hand OSGB content). > > Best > Dan > > _______________________________________________ > 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
