On 25 January 2014 18:46, SK53 <[email protected]> wrote: > Of course it would be much better if everything was released under plain > OGL,
Indeed. Coincidently, it seems that OS is currently running a survey on the future of OS OpenData. So if anyone would like to let them know that it would be better if they used the standard OGL in place of their own licence, completing the survey might be a good opportunity to do so: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/2014/01/help-us-shape-the-future-of-os-opendata/ BTW: To return to the question that started this thread, I've been in touch with Norfolk CC, and they've confirmed that they made a mistake with the licence description originally. As I suspected, the data should only have been made available under the OS OpenData Licence. The pages at http://maps.norfolk.gov.uk/inspire/ and http://data.gov.uk/dataset/norfolk-public-rights-of-way have now been corrected. It's a shame, but at least we know where we stand now. -- Robert Whittaker _______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
