<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000066">
Frederik Ramm wrote on 16/09/2010 08:37:
<blockquote cite="mid:4C91C937.20707@remote.org" type="cite">Hi,
<br>
<br>
Ed Avis wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">It's hard to give a factual answer to
this. However the only reasonable guess
<br>
is 'no'. I cannot imagine any licence change going ahead that
would require
<br>
giving up the OS data.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Pardon me for barging in with an international perspective, but
bear in mind that OS-derived data in OSM makes up only a tiny
fraction of OSM data world-wide, and that OSM is not primarily a
data importing project.
<br>
<br>
I, too, assume that the license change will not jeopardise OS data
but in the grand scheme of things, if OS data were found out to be
incompatible, it would only be a minor loss that should not unduly
impede the switch to a better license.
<br>
<br>
Bye
<br>
Frederik
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
While the International context is interesting, from a practical map
usage point of view, it is the national perspective that is
important. The OS data is high quality and gives access to
information, such as rivers and streams which are difficult to plot
accurately, if only due to land access issues.<br>
<br>
The trouble with licensing is that to be legal, you need to be
pedantic about the data usage. There are two issues - the identified
derived data and the unidentified data. Once there is a single item
of data that is (or at least can be shown to be) derived from OS,
then the terms of usage of the OS apply. Tagging helps identify
admitted examples, but the reality is that anyone editing with the
OS map as a background is checking his edits and therefore deriving
data from the OS data.<br>
<br>
Once a way has been tagged as OS derived, I would presume that it is
derived in perpetuity, even if substantially edited.<br>
<br>
So back to the original poster, in principle if the database is to
be clean of OS data to avoid being incompatible, then two things
need to happen -<br>
<br>
* any way that has at any time been tagged as derived from OS needs
to be deleted from the database. (Not necessarily trivial if people
remove the source tags).<br>
* any way that has at any time been derived from the OS and could be
shown to be derived by reasonable means would need also to be
removed.<br>
<br>
Ethically, there is a third point of derived data that would be
difficult to prove came from OS but was actually derived but was not
marked as such - arguably every edit that was done with the OS map
in place as a background for confirming GPS traces and the like.<br>
<br>
Considering the second point, that is nearly impossible, so to be
legally correct, the only way to deal with that would be to reset
the database to the point before the data was available. Therefore
it is dangerous to suggest that the OS data represents the threat of
a minor loss. I'd suggest to be legally correct, it represents the
threat to the viability of the UK project.<br>
<br>
So I would assume that the OS data is a major jeopardy. It is not a
trivial issue to remove. It is a trivial issue to agree a wording of
licence that explicitly acknowledges the OS data and requires
derived works to be licensed in a compatible manner. From a UK
perspective, the OS data represents an important resource funded by
the people of Britain which has been granted back to the people of
Britain on that understanding, and on the understanding that it is
an enabling resource for unimagined derived products (which is
surely the OSM motivation too). For the sake of the licensing
requirement which is essentially the most trivial to comply with -
the acknowledgement that some of the information has been derived
from the OS - the principled argument from the International
perspective makes little sense from a UK perspective (IMHO!!!).<br>
<br>
Spenny<br>
</body>
</html>