[OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey

[Francis Davey]

2011/6/16 David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net>:
> As a slightly supplementary question of what to do with data from those
> users who have not agreed to the CT's can I make the following suggestion.
>
> Given that we obviously want to move forward with a clean database untainted
> by any data which might be incompatible with future licences, AND
>
> Given that the LWG have been unable to establish that OS Opendata is
> compatible with the CT's , at least that is what I assume is meant by "In
> the UK, we have the ambivalent nature of the license governing OS StreetView
> usage" [1]

Can I just make a plea for people not to talk about "data" (of any
kind) being "compatible with the CT's". The CT's are a contract
between a contributor and OSMF. It may be a breach of contract for one
contributor to contribute data under the CT's when it would not be a
breach of contract for another to do so. Talking about "compatibility"
in this way is at best unhelpful and at worst simply meaningless.

At present it is a breach of the CT's to contribute most datasets that
have not been personally collected by the individual contributor since
the grant in 2 is wider than most open licenses permit.

The right question - when considering deletions - is, can the OSMF use
this dataset as part of the OSM. That is a question of compatibility
between the original licence (in this case the OS Opendata licence)
and the way in which OSMF uses it.

In this respect the OS Opendata licence seems fairly good. There are
some minor points of pedantry (I don't know if OSMF complies properly
with the PECD for instance) and the OS Opendata licence fails to
expressly allow sublicensing, but that appears implied from the rest
of the terms.

-- 
Francis Davey