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

[David Groom]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Chris Hill" <osm at raggedred.net>
To: <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Monday, June 11, 2012 6:12 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response from Hampshire County Council


> 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.
>
> -- 
I could equally reply that:

"If OS had wanted to confirm that the OS OpenData licence and ODbL were 
compatible then they would have said something in writing to the effect  'We 
(OS) believe that data released under the OS OpenData licence is compatible 
with ODbL' or somesuch, and this does not exist.  What their statement does, 
is grant additional rights to OS OpenData so that it can be used under 
ODbL".

One of the problems is that all that has been made public is the phrase "has 
no objections to geodata derived in part from OS OpenData being released 
under the Open Database License 1.0." [1], which is obviously taken from a 
larger document, and in the context of other non-disclosed correspondence.

I still believe my interpretation is the correct one to be drawn from the 
short quote above, but would concede that it is possible that Chris' 
interpretation could have been meant.

Regards

David

[1]  http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.gis.openstreetmap.region.gb/6516

> Cheers, Chris
> user: chillly
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>