[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.
>
> -- 

Oh dear.  Embarrassingly I realise my email at 17:16 was not quite what I 
had intended to write.  My second sentance "Which is why the LWG needed to 
get specific agreement from the OS last
summer that OS OpenData could be used in OSM", should have been "Which is 
why the LWG needed to get specific agreement from the OS last summer that OS 
OpenData could be used under the ODbL and therefore used in OSM".

So essentially what I was saying was that I believe the statement in [1] 
grants additional rights (to those contained in the OS  OpenData licence), 
so that OpenData can be used under ODbL, whereas Chilly seems to be saying 
the statement in [1] means the OS has said data released under OS OpenData 
licence is compatible with ODbL.

Apologies if this was not clear.

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
>