[OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council

[Chris Hill]

On 11/06/12 17:16, David Groom wrote:
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Martin Koppenhoefer" 
> <dieterdreist at gmail.com>
> To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." 
> <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 1:38 PM
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council
>
>
>> 2012/6/11 Nick Whitelegg <Nick.Whitelegg at solent.ac.uk>:
>>> In answer to the queries below, the data is free to use as is the OS
>> open data on their website.
>> ...
>>> So in short, we believe the RoW data can be incorporated into
>>> OpenStreetmap as long as acknowledgement and copyright is shown from
>>> where it came and how can be used"
>>
>>
>>> So in summary it appears that the OS gave HCC specific permission to 
>>> use
>>> this, and I'm guessing it's OK to use in OSM, but I am not in any 
>>> sense of
>>> the word a legal expert so, what are people's opinions on this?
>>
>>
>> I am not a legal expert either, but their statements above seem clear
>> to me: if OS data is compatible with CT/ODBL also the HCC data should
>> be compatible.
>>
>
> Except that the OS OpenData licence is NOT compatible with the CT / 
> ODbL. Which is why the LWG needed to get specific agreement from the 
> OS last summer that OS OpenData could be used in OSM [1].

That is not true. LWG did not get 'specific agreement' from OS. We are 
simply using OS OpenData in compliance with the OS OpenData licence and 
OS confirmed:

"The Ordnance Survey has no objections to geodata derived in part from 
OS OpenData being released under the Open Database License 1.0".

This is not a special or specific agreement. If there was special 
permission there would be something in writing to the effect "We (OS) 
grant You (OSM) permission .... " or somesuch and this does not exist. 
We are simply using the the OS OpenData under their licence and OS 
confirmed that that is acceptable.

-- 
Cheers, Chris
user: chillly