[Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

Thu Feb 19 12:11:16 UTC 2015

In my view the additional bit about "acquiring rights in the Information
(whether the Information is obtained directly from the Licensor or
otherwise)" is a clarification; not a change to the effect of the licence
(when comparing the versions).

"You" applies to persons acquiring rights in the information indirectly
under all versions of OGL. The additional wording in Version 3 just makes
that explicit. Otherwise Version 3 would not be backward compatible with
Version 2.

Owen

On 19 February 2015 at 11:42, Michael Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz> wrote:

 This is really good news and thank you Rob for flagging it.  Thanks also
> to the unknown folks at OS who have been working on this ... it follows
> through on a promise made to me in 2010 that they would look at.
>
> As cautioned by Rob, do wait until
> http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/licensing/using-creating-data-with-os-products/os-opendata.html
> updates before jumping into CodePoint data with abandon ... it is from a
> not very open friendly third party and the OGL does allow exemptions for
> that.
>
> I believe also that this will be good news for ?English Heritage,  (sorry,
> I live in Sweden),  data users as it removes an ambiguity over which of
> their data is covered by OGL and which by the now retired OS OpenData
> license.
>
> On the change from OGL 2 to OGL 3, I am a bit less enthusiastic.  I sat
> down with a large cup of coffee, compared them line by line and made the
> notes below.  The thing to highlight is the change to the "You" definition
> which does possibly shift some of concern about the OS Opendata license
> into the OGL itself. The usual caveat: IANAL.
>
> Mike
>
> The non-trivial changes between OGL 2 and OGL 3 are as follows:
>
> Insertion:
>
> "You must, where you do any of the above:  acknowledge the source of the
> Information by including *or linking to* any attribution statement
> specified by the Information Provider(s) and, where possible, provide a
> link to this licence; "
>
> This is good news.
>
> Additional wording:
>
> "If you are using Information from several Information Providers and
> listing multiple attributions is not practical in your product or
> application, you may include a URI or hyperlink to a resource that contains
> the required attribution statements."
>
> This is good news, it follows practise that we have set up in
> OpenStreetMap.
>
> 'You',* 'you' and 'your'* means the natural or legal person, or body of
> persons corporate or incorporate, acquiring rights *in the Information
> (whether the Information is obtained directly from the Licensor or
> otherwise)* under this licence.
>
> This could potentially imply that users of OpenStreetMap data for the UK,
> for example to make a map, might have to additionally attribute the OS, (or
> other bodies). Just being paranoid here but I think it is worth following
> up.  On the other hand in both OGL 2 and OGL 3 is this explicit statement:
>
> "These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution License
> 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License"
>
> The wording of the latter is at
> http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/by/1-0/
>
> Since the ODBL and Attribution License share common ancestry on
> attribution drafting, then quite likely we are compatible too by
> extension.  But it needs some one to sit down and compare both licenses.
> Apologies but I lack time these days.
>
>
>
> On 18/02/2015 19:41, Owen Boswarva wrote:
>
> (I should clarify that by "compatible" I meant forward-compatible rather
> than interoperable. OGL data is suitable as an input to a OdBL dataset, but
> not vice versa.)
>
>  -- Owen (@owenboswarva)
>
>
> On 18 February 2015 at 18:04, Jo Walsh <metazool at fastmail.net> wrote:
>
>  I asked @owenboswarva on Twitter who is an active voice whom i trust on
>> open government data issues, and he said this:
>>
>> "IMO the only significant difference is v3 explicitly permits re-users to
>> list multiple attributions via a URI or link.
>>  ...the differences are mostly just tidier syntax. If you are happy v2
>> is compatible with OdBL (IMO it is) then v3 is also."
>>
>>
>> zx
>>  --
>>  Jo Walsh
>>  metazool at fastmail.net
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015, at 12:04 AM, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>>
>>   On 17 February 2015 at 23:57, Matthijs Melissen <
>> info at matthijsmelissen.nl> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I could imagine that OGL-3 has imported OS ODL's clause on
>> sublicensing that caused incompatibility with ODbL, which would make
>> OGL-3 incompatible with ODbL.Do we have confirmation that this is not
>> the case, i.e. that OGL-3 and ODbL are compatible?
>>
>> -- Matthijs
>>
>>
>>
>>  All the OGL versions are online. A comparison of v2 and v3 shows
>> nothing to worry me. Hopefully Robert W will chip in as he's clued up on
>> all this.
>>
>> Version 3:
>>
>> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/
>>
>> Version 2:
>>
>> http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/
>>  *_______________________________________________*
>>  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
>>
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-GB mailing listTalk-GB at openstreetmap.orghttps://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/20150219/ce41c675/attachment.html>