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

Robert Whittaker (OSM) robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com
Thu Jun 16 09:37:21 BST 2011


On 16 June 2011 07:58, Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with your conclusion as I don't think
deletions alone is the right thing to be considering. A major purpose
of the CTs is to ensure that all the data remaining in OSM is suitable
for re-licensing under any "Free and Open" license without the need
for further checks. Given the amount of discussion that took place
when the CTs were being developed, one has to assume that this
requirement is quite deliberate (whether you agree with it or not),
and the flexibility for re-licensing in the future is something that
OSMF really wants.

In this respect it is important (to OSMF at least) that we arrive at
an OSM database that only contains data that can be re-licensed in
this way. So even if OSMF is legally ok to continue distributing OS
OpenData under ODbL, it wouldn't be in line with the above philosophy
to leave OS OpenData-derived content in the database if we can't
guarantee that it's 'safe' for future re-licensing. (Though maybe OSMF
will change their mind on this point...)

Therefore, the right question to ask at the moment is whether the
original license of the source material is compatible with
distribution of a derived work under an arbitrary and unspecified
"free and open" license. If we're not asking this question, then it
rather defeats the whole point of this requirement in the CTs. We
might as well just rip up the CTs, only ask mappers to ensure their
data is compatible with the currently proposed licenses, and postpone
the problems with re-licensing to the point where we actually want to
change the license again.

Those accepting the CTs without the appropriate rights to allow
re-licensing under any "free and open" license, may not be creating
any legal problems for themselves or OSM in the short term. But they
are presumably open to a breach of contract suit being brought by
OSMF, and (more importantly) are giving the community and OSMF the
misleading impression that their contributions are 'safe' for
re-licensing in the future. If OSMF want us just to consider current
licensing, then they need to change the CTs. They should not be asking
mappers to sign something that is false because they failed to realise
the consequences of their drafting.

In the case of OS OpenData, OSMF and/or LWG need to decide whether or
not they believe OS OpenData can be used under the terms of the CTs.
If not, then they need to work out what people who have made use of
the data should do with regard to signing the CTs, and what they are
going to do with the OS OpenData-derived content currently in OSM. The
way I see it there are two options: we either retain the re-licensing
flexibility demanded by OSMF and remove all the OS OpenData from OSM,
or we amend the CTs to allow OS OpenData to be kept, and accept a
restriction on the possibilities for future re-licensing. (The other
possibility of getting a private agreement between OSMF and OS seems
to be dead in the water -- and I don't see why it would be in OS's
interests to even consider something like that anyway.)

To return to the original question. There should probably be two maps
of "content to be deleted". One simply with everything but CT-accepts
(which would presumably be safe for distribution under ODbL), and one
where we also flag any data we believe doesn't allow future licensing
under any "free and open" license (which would indeed include OS
OpenData as far as I can tell). The community / OSMF can then decide
which system it wants to go with. (However, these views wouldn't be
perfect, since there are be people, such as myself, who haven't signed
the CTs only because of their use of OS OpenData. Hence the data
losses if future re-licensing were to be abandoned would be less than
indicated.)

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker



More information about the legal-talk mailing list