<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
If it is UK Ordnance Survey data that is the issue, we now have direct
clarification from them that they have no objection to continued
distribution of data derived from their OS OpenData under under the
ODbL. At the moment, this excludes Code-Point Open, (postcode) data.
Hope that helps.<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
<br>
On 11/07/2011 16:30, john whelan wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAJ-Ex1E0LQVTEUPPqp_MT-Dex3mzNbCkwGjv4svpMqt50dta=g@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">As I mentioned people can get frustrated. I made three
requests apparently to the incorrect people to have data deleted prior
to deleting some but since have made a formal request which was
ignored. <br>
<br>
The CANVEC data wasn't a major issue and could easily have been
reimported, it was some of the other data that was mixed in with it
that is the problem and its not so easily identifiable. I think it was
Ordnance Survey identified derived data as being a problem.<br>
<br>
I would be more than happy if any data that is not labelled CANVEC
import under my user id could be removed, to me CANVEC was not the
major issue and that would get rid of the major source of the problem
data. I can then drop back in the clean manually mapped bits. I think
others interpreted CANVEC is being the problem area, I certainly didn't
identify it as being the only problem.<br>
<br>
By the way under the new CT OSM can change the license on the data.
CANVEC have agreed that .ODBL or SA are acceptable and I'm happy with
that. However CANVEC does not have the authority to release the data
when the subsequent license can be changed.<br>
<br>
As you yourself have stated the new CT is not import friendly and the
uncertainty that introduced by the "oh and we can change the license to
whatever we like" part of the new CT effectively means it is impossible
to accept any imported data licensing.<br>
<br>
I think OSM's current niche is the community side and to accept
individual's data to build the map and basically get out of imports.
Let others build the maps that combine imports with user data.<br>
<br>
Cheerio John<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On 11 July 2011 09:23, Frederik Ramm <span
dir="ltr"><<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:frederik@remote.org">frederik@remote.org</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Hi,
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
On 07/11/11 15:17, john whelan wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I inadvertently included some grey material and requested it be deleted<br>
from OSM, that request was ignored.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
Are you a different John Whelan from the John Whelan who deleted (not
"requested it to be deleted" but "deleted without prior discussion")
lots of his imported data in Canada, tearing down with it contributions
by many others, because of so-called license doubts when at the same
time a member of the government agency that released the data went on
record on talk-ca to say "everything is all right"?<br>
<br>
Bye<br>
<font color="#888888">Frederik<br>
</font></blockquote>
</div>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:talk@openstreetmap.org">talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>