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

[Chris Hill]

"Robert Whittaker (OSM)" <robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com> wrote:

>On 11 June 2012 18:12, Chris Hill <osm at raggedred.net> wrote:
>> 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 that were true then we'd be able to use any source licensed under
>the OS OpenData licence. How do you explain the fact that we've
>specifically been told by LWG that we cannot use CodePoint Open, even
>though it is licensed by Ordnance Survey under exactly the same OS
>OpenData licence?
>
>Robert.
>
>-- 
>Robert Whittaker
>
>_______________________________________________
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

That is, IMHO, an over reaction. 

I was not party to the discussions with OS, nor to the LWG discussions, but I believe that OS, understandably, simply said they could not speak for Royal Mail. This resulted in the gross over reaction of saying that we should not use CodePoint Open data. RM have not objected, they simply haven't commented, possibly because no one has asked them. 

The people who could clear this up are the LWG members who had the discusions and have not yet revealed the whole process, including exactly how the statement from OS came about.
-- 
Cheers, Chris
OSM User chillly