<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 29, 2010 at 2:47 PM, David Groom <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:reviews@pacific-rim.net">reviews@pacific-rim.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
----- Original Message ----- From: "Grant Slater" <<a href="mailto:openstreetmap@firefishy.com" target="_blank">openstreetmap@firefishy.com</a>><br>
To: <<a href="mailto:kevin@cordina.org.uk" target="_blank">kevin@cordina.org.uk</a>>; "Licensing and other legal discussions."<br>
<<a href="mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">legal-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>><br>
Sent: Wednesday, September 29, 2010 1:21 PM<div class="im"><br>
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license<br>
<br>
<br>
<br></div><div class="im">
On 29 September 2010 13:15, <<a href="mailto:kevin@cordina.org.uk" target="_blank">kevin@cordina.org.uk</a>> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
But since the licence hasn't been implemented yet, surely the final<br>
decision on choice needs to be made now. Practice has clearly changed<br>
since 2008.<br>
<br>
If the decision was set in stone in 2008 why wasn't there a big warning<br>
when the OS data was released that it was incompatible?<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
The legal advice is that OS OpenData _is_ compatible.<br>
</div></blockquote>
<br>
It might greatly reduce the volume on this list if that legal advice were published in full.<font color="#888888"></font><br></blockquote></div><br>It would also help if members of the LWG were a little more forthcoming in their communications. Here's what Grant was really trying to say:<br>
<br><blockquote style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;" class="gmail_quote"><b>OS StreetView Compatibility</b><br><br>The state of play is as follows:<br><br>1)
We understand that our legal counsel feels that our CT/OBbL terms ARE
compatible with OS license terms. However, we have not looked or
discussed the reasons WHY, and need to understand that better.<br><br>2)
There has been discussed on legal-talk from an individual who has been
in direct email correspondance with OS and indicates that they feel our
CT/ODbL terms are NOT compatible. We need to understand this better.<br><br>3)
Mike has been in discussion with an OSM sympathiser who suggests that
best approach is long-term political lobbying over the heads of the OS.<br></blockquote><br>In other words there's some lawyer somewhere who *feels* that it's ok but he hasn't gotten around to telling anyone why he thinks that's the case and there's at least one other interested party who holds a different view. That's a long way from "OS OpenData _is_ compatible".<br>
<br><br>