[OSM-legal-talk] OS Opendata & the new license

Grant Slater openstreetmap at firefishy.com
Wed Sep 29 16:49:27 BST 2010


On 29 September 2010 15:33, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> It might greatly reduce the volume on this list if that legal advice were
>> published in full.
>
> 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:
>

Thanks 80n, but those are your words and views.
Where are you quoting these numbered responses from?

>> OS StreetView Compatibility
>>
>> The state of play is as follows:
>>
>> 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.
>>

Yes our legal council believes CT/ODbL is compatible. The lawyer did
supply a breakdown and reasoning why he believes it is compatible. BUT
the Contributor Terms are currently being revised and will need
further review. I cannot release their breakdown and reasoning without
their blessing, as you know the lawyer represents OSMF.

>> 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.
>>

The question to and the response from OS is very woolly in my opinion.
The LWG has not yet had a chance to discussed this with OSMF's legal
council. OS's response emphases the required OpenData attribution
requirement, which is an opt-in offered by the Contributor Terms.

>> 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.
>

Not sure where you are quoting this from. Seem sensible to me, it was
lobbying that got OS to release OpenData in the first place.

> 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".
>

80n you know the lawyer by name and the firm who he represents. As
detailed above I disagree with your summary.
Lets quote what I actually said: "The legal advice is that OS OpenData
_is_ compatible." OSMF's legal council believes that OS OpenData is
compatible. Better?

Regards
 Grant



More information about the legal-talk mailing list