[Talk-GB] UK Open Government Licence

[SK53]

Agree, we also have both OGL 1.0 (e.g., Natural England) and OGL 2.0 (e.g,
OSGB).

I've been reading the licenses again, and I think the main sticking point
is the *viral attribution* clause. Thus it may be that we need to check
that Natural England, Norwich County Council etc. are happy with whatever
the OSGB agreed to regarding viral attribution (and presumably the Royal
Mail did not).

The other point is *sublicensing *of data within the OGL data. The local
government authority, QUANGO etc, should have checked with OSGB
*BEFORE *releasing
data under the OSGB OGL. I presume that this is because some datasets
contain various quantities of MasterMap data, which they are not entitled
to license. (Check the Land Registry INSPIRE Parcel data OGL
terms<http://www.landregistry.gov.uk/market-trend-data/inspire/inspire-faq#i23>for
an example where this more or less eliminates any of our considered
uses of the data). Thus it is the OSGB who have to make a judgement about
whether the other body's release of geodata under OGL may impair what OSGB
do with MasterMap (not just sales, but VARs and other services built round
MasterMap). I know this is what Nottingham City Council did with their
footpath data.

Also note that notionally not all of a dataset contains OSGB data (for
instance footpath names and identifiers contain no OSGB data).

What I agree is very important to check is whether the releasing body has
consulted with the OSGB and that they have got the basic license terms
right (see ONS reference before).

Jonathan mentioned good faith, I'm not sure that this is works terribly
well with copyright stuff.

So to recap, these seem to me to be the key questions which we need to ask
or be satisfied about:

   - Which data (attributes) in a data set belong solely to the body
   licensing the data?
   - Which data (and attributes) in a data set contain, belong, or are
   derived from another data set not owned by the licensor? (this is mainly
   OGSB data in our case)
   - Has the licensor sought the opinion, permission, etc of any components
   in the data set which are not wholly owned by them?
   - What restrictions are implied by any sub-licensed data (see LR
   Inspire)?
   - Has the licensor applied the correct license, given the source and
   content of their data set?
   - Is the licensor willing to vary 'viral' attribution terms for
   insubstantial extracts & produced works (as per ODbL 1.0).

Of course it would be much better if everything was released under plain
OGL, but we are moving to a point, where, for footpaths, in particular,
councils think that providing a file to rowmaps is all they need to do. I
think this slapdash approach to providing data is a more significant
problem than the nitty gritty of licenses. As these license issues will be
outside the normal skills of council/QUANGO lawyers it will continue to be
cheaper to say "NO". Nottingham explicitly adopted its Open Data project to
reduce admin costs, so I'm surprised that these organisations are leaving
so much ambiguity in how they do things so as to invite expensive queries.

As in an Agatha Christie, it pays to ask "where's the money?". Valuable
data sets such as PAF or MasterMap land parcel boundaries will be defended
in one way or another (not Open, restrictions, onerous attribution terms,
avoiding answering questions). Others are less likely to be problematic
(including footpaths as these are less likely to be 'snapped' to MasterMap
features, and many natural datasets because the land is less valuable and
therefore less likely to generate mapping revenue).

Personally I don't want to make a huge amount of usage from these datasets:
I'm definitely interested in attributes such as footpath references, and
I'd like to have accurate boundaries for things like National Parks, Access
Land, SSSIs and other Nature Reserves. However in the main I feel that we
as a whole do a better job by using these things as a guide for mapping.

Of course the ODbL also creates problems because we can't release any
mashups of footpath data from OSGB OGL sources and OSM (for instance as a
Garmin IMG file): the resulting DB has to be released under ODbL.

Sorry this has ended up as a mishmash of thoughts after the more germane
couple of points.

What we really need to do is to create some standard letters with the
critical text as boilerplate and get emailing these govt bodies.

Regards,

Jerry




On 24 January 2014 17:47, Richard Mann <richard.mann.westoxford at gmail.com>wrote:

> "You need to formally ask:  Any other dataset published under the OS
> OpenData License by other organisations, such as English Heritage, (or
> by OS if any)."
>
> is unclear: ask who?
>
> Ask the organisation doing the publishing (eg Norfolk CC), or OS?
>
> My impression of the Mike Collinson dialogue was that OS basically agreed
> that *indirect* use of their mapbase in this fashion as the context for
> someone else's data was OK, but that the "someone else" also had to agree,
> not that OS had to be asked each and every time. Robert's interpretation is
> that OS have to be asked every time.
>
> Perhaps the wiki text could be made more explicit.
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) <
> robert.whittaker+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 24 January 2014 14:25, SK53 <sk53.osm at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > By all means say "OSMf/LWG consider that OSGB OGL data can be included
>> in OSM, but
>> > I personally avoid doing so ..."
>>
>> But as far I I know, that would be incorrect. According to Michael
>> Collinson's post at
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2013-July/015028.html
>>
>> "LWG view on use of data in OSM under OS OpenData License:
>>
>> Yes: OS OpenData product except CodePoint
>>
>> No:  CodePoint (a Royal Mail response to Chris Hill needs further
>> investigation)
>>
>> You need to formally ask:  Any other dataset published under the OS
>> OpenData License by other organisations, such as English Heritage, (or
>> by OS if any)."
>>
>> So unless something has changed since then that I'm not aware of, LWG
>> consider that data licensed under the OS OpenData Licence *cannot* be
>> included in OSM, unless it's either one of the specific OS OpenData
>> products (except CodePoint Open) or you formally ask for permission
>> from the rights holders.
>>
>> Robert.
>>
>> --
>> Robert Whittaker
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-GB mailing list
>> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/attachments/20140125/e3f82de0/attachment-0001.html>