Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData Licence update (WAS: Finding Unmapped public rights of way)
And it has been suggested I give a succinct summary of my own verbosity: 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). Mike On 30/07/2013 15:58, Michael Collinson wrote: On 30/07/2013 11:49, o...@k3v.eu wrote: Robert, On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:57:13 +0100, "Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)" wrote: ... OSM takes a conservative line on copyright and licensing issues... I agree with Rob 100% on this, it is pretty obvious that the Government intends for this data to be freely usable by businesses and projects like OSM. This has been covered to death a number of times in the past. There is a lot of external data in OSM that requires attribution. The way the project handles that seems to work pretty well regardless of what the amateur lawyers may say. It is very hard to imagine the circumstances where OSM would face any issues from using these datasets and if that were to occur then the data can be removed as has happened when other data sources have been challenged in the past. If you don't want to use this data in OSM then don't use it but you are not the arbiter deciding what others may do. I would add to this that as Robert W is quite right that "OSM takes a conservative line on copyright and licensing issues", the Licensing Working Group formally made the Ordnance Survey aware of our (then) intended use under ODbL and explicitly pointed out where there where potential incompatibilities. The upshot was that the OS kindly made a formal declaration that they had no objections to such use for all OpenData product where they have complete IP control, i.e. everything except CodePoint data. Since that time, the OpenStreetMap Foundation, as formal publishers of the database, have had no communication from the OS rescinding that for future releases of OpenData. In other words, if the Man Says Yes, then the Man Says Yes. Now, the potential incompatibility with the OS OpenData License per se has never been removed. This means that there are problems for the OSM community and the general public in these *other* areas: - Use of OS OpenData other than that described above, i.e. CodePoint. [I personally feel that the real problem all along is the Royal Mail and their apparent decision to hijack post code and address databases paid for with public resources into the private sector. Chris Hill has been working here but the LWG informally feels that the response he got is deliberately vague and obfuscatory.] - Confusing use of the OS OpenData License instead of the Open Government License on other datasets. As I recall that is datasets from English Heritage. A number of individuals have been working on these and other issues, at least Robert Whitaker, Rob Nickerson and Chris Hill. I apologise to them that the LWG has not been in a position due to lack of manpower to give support despite requests to do so. I therefore suggest the following: We (all) take a simple unified stance that: 1) The Open Government License, OGL, was deliberately brought into being to provide a consistent, harmonious platform for releasing open government-funded and government-owned data. The OS OpenData License is clearly at odds with this and should be retired completely. Anything currently under the OS license should re-published under OGL at the earliest opportunity. 2) There is a set of other key datasets which we believe need to be unequivocally published under OGL for the public good: - PROW data, however provided. - "Royal Mail" address database, (I am shaky on the details on this, Robert Barr is the man to talk to). - Others you may identify. I, and I believe all other LWG members, will be at SOTM 2013 in Birmingham. I suggest that we all meet up then. If possible, I'd like to make points 1 and 2 as a formal LWG/OSMF submission to ODUG before then. However, I want to be sure that I get all my facts straight, and lack of time to read everything up is what is stopping me right now. Any comments/support greatly welcomed. Mike LWG ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData Licence update (WAS: Finding Unmapped public rights of way)
On 30/07/2013 11:49, o...@k3v.eu wrote: Robert, On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:57:13 +0100, "Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)" wrote: ... OSM takes a conservative line on copyright and licensing issues... I agree with Rob 100% on this, it is pretty obvious that the Government intends for this data to be freely usable by businesses and projects like OSM. This has been covered to death a number of times in the past. There is a lot of external data in OSM that requires attribution. The way the project handles that seems to work pretty well regardless of what the amateur lawyers may say. It is very hard to imagine the circumstances where OSM would face any issues from using these datasets and if that were to occur then the data can be removed as has happened when other data sources have been challenged in the past. If you don't want to use this data in OSM then don't use it but you are not the arbiter deciding what others may do. I would add to this that as Robert W is quite right that "OSM takes a conservative line on copyright and licensing issues", the Licensing Working Group formally made the Ordnance Survey aware of our (then) intended use under ODbL and explicitly pointed out where there where potential incompatibilities. The upshot was that the OS kindly made a formal declaration that they had no objections to such use for all OpenData product where they have complete IP control, i.e. everything except CodePoint data. Since that time, the OpenStreetMap Foundation, as formal publishers of the database, have had no communication from the OS rescinding that for future releases of OpenData. In other words, if the Man Says Yes, then the Man Says Yes. Now, the potential incompatibility with the OS OpenData License per se has never been removed. This means that there are problems for the OSM community and the general public in these *other* areas: - Use of OS OpenData other than that described above, i.e. CodePoint. [I personally feel that the real problem all along is the Royal Mail and their apparent decision to hijack post code and address databases paid for with public resources into the private sector. Chris Hill has been working here but the LWG informally feels that the response he got is deliberately vague and obfuscatory.] - Confusing use of the OS OpenData License instead of the Open Government License on other datasets. As I recall that is datasets from English Heritage. A number of individuals have been working on these and other issues, at least Robert Whitaker, Rob Nickerson and Chris Hill. I apologise to them that the LWG has not been in a position due to lack of manpower to give support despite requests to do so. I therefore suggest the following: We (all) take a simple unified stance that: 1) The Open Government License, OGL, was deliberately brought into being to provide a consistent, harmonious platform for releasing open government-funded and government-owned data. The OS OpenData License is clearly at odds with this and should be retired completely. Anything currently under the OS license should re-published under OGL at the earliest opportunity. 2) There is a set of other key datasets which we believe need to be unequivocally published under OGL for the public good: - PROW data, however provided. - "Royal Mail" address database, (I am shaky on the details on this, Robert Barr is the man to talk to). - Others you may identify. I, and I believe all other LWG members, will be at SOTM 2013 in Birmingham. I suggest that we all meet up then. If possible, I'd like to make points 1 and 2 as a formal LWG/OSMF submission to ODUG before then. However, I want to be sure that I get all my facts straight, and lack of time to read everything up is what is stopping me right now. Any comments/support greatly welcomed. Mike LWG ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData Licence update (WAS: Finding Unmapped public rights of way)
On 30 July 2013 10:49, wrote: > I agree with Rob 100% on this, it is pretty obvious that the Government > intends for this data to be freely usable by businesses and projects > like OSM. This has been covered to death a number of times in the past. > > There is a lot of external data in OSM that requires attribution. The way > the project handles that seems to work pretty well regardless of what > the amateur lawyers may say. > > It is very hard to imagine the circumstances where OSM would face any > issues from using these datasets and if that were to occur then the > data can be removed as has happened when other data sources have been > challenged in the past. > > If you don't want to use this data in OSM then don't use it but you are > not the arbiter deciding what others may do. No, but then neither are you. But I do care about this project and I feel that it's important that contributors are properly informed. Where a license that some data is offered under is known to be incompatible with OSM's license (currently the ODbL), I fail to see how anyone can knowingly make use of that data and still comply with the statement they agreed to in the OSM contributor terms: "If you contribute Contents, You are indicating that, as far as You know, You have the right to authorize OSMF to use and distribute those Contents under our current licence terms." I would agree with you that the chances of OS taking action over this are rather slim. But while we do have the ability to delete infringing data after the fact, as we have seen, that can be a somewhat painful process, resulting in the loss of more than just the infringing data. However, those two points are pretty irrelevant as far as I can tell. OS says their licence is incompatible with the ODbL, and each mapper has agreed to only add contents which can legally be re-distributed under the ODbL. Nowhere does it say that individual mappers can take it upon themselves to add contents where OSMF is unlikely to be sued for violating a licence. The only option I see is for you to argue that OS is wrong in its interpretation of its own licence. But the effort that ODUG is putting in to explaining the problems with the OS OpenData Licence, and pressuring OS to change, would seem to contradict this. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData Licence update (WAS: Finding Unmapped public rights of way)
Robert, On Tue, 30 Jul 2013 08:57:13 +0100, "Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)" wrote: >... > >OSM takes a conservative line on copyright and licensing issues... I agree with Rob 100% on this, it is pretty obvious that the Government intends for this data to be freely usable by businesses and projects like OSM. This has been covered to death a number of times in the past. There is a lot of external data in OSM that requires attribution. The way the project handles that seems to work pretty well regardless of what the amateur lawyers may say. It is very hard to imagine the circumstances where OSM would face any issues from using these datasets and if that were to occur then the data can be removed as has happened when other data sources have been challenged in the past. If you don't want to use this data in OSM then don't use it but you are not the arbiter deciding what others may do. Kevin ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData Licence update (WAS: Finding Unmapped public rights of way)
On 29 July 2013 19:47, Rob Nickerson wrote: > Bottom line = Feel free to use OS OpenData for OSM mapping :-D Er, No. Assuming that you're referring to general material under the OS OpenData Licence (which is what the rest of the emails were about), then I don't know how you've managed to draw that conclusion. OSM takes a conservative line on copyright and licensing issues related to source data. As long as OS owns IP in the data and claims that its OS OpenData Licence is incompatible with ODbL, we should not make use of such data without separate explicit permission from the copyright holders. The only instance I'm aware of for this is for the specific "OS OpenData" datasets listed at http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/products/os-opendata.html (with the exception of CodePoint Open). The ODUG is only an advisory body producing suggestions and reports for Government. Even if it was a Government body with the ability to set policy, it has only published its view on how things should work, rather than saying that the OS OpenData Licence as it stands is compatible with ODbL. And even if that were the case, it would appear that OS is currently able to choose its own license, and therefore should have some sway in determining how it's to be interpreted. While the work of the ODUG is very encouraging, and is likely to have influence where it matters, I'm afraid we're not there yet. For the time being, we cannot regard the OS OpenData Licence as sufficient to allow data to be used in OSM. That is likely to remain the case until OS bows to the pressure and either amends their licence, or their interpretation of it. So the bottom line at the moment is that the datasets listed at http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/products/os-opendata.html (with the exception of CodePoint Open) are OK to use, while anything else under the OS OpenData Licence is not (unless you get separate permission from all the rights holders). But hopefully things will change in the near future... Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OS OpenData Licence update (WAS: Finding Unmapped public rights of way)
Robert W said: >That being the case, please note that Ordnance Survey have recently stated that their "OS OpenData licence is not forward compatible with the ODC-By and ODbL". Yes, they did, and that quote has gotten them in a lot of trouble. The Open Government License (of which Ordnance Survey's OpenData licence is based) was intended to allow fair and open re-use of public sector data. As you are well aware Ordnance Survey added some text above the standard OGL that played havoc with this. I have been working to raise this at the Open Data User Group- a government funded group that reports into the governments Data Strategy Board - and OS's quote was the trigger for action: == Updated Open Government Licence == Version 2 of the OGL now makes it perfectly clear that OGL is compatible with our licence: "This means that when the Information is adapted and licensed under either of those licences, you automatically satisfy the conditions of the OGL when you comply with the other licence. The OGLv2.0 is Open Definition compliant." http://nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/2/ == ODUG's report on OS licensing == A quote from the report makes it pretty clear what they want: "Ordnance Survey receives £20m of annual funding from government to release OS OpenData under the Open Government Licence. Government intends this funding to foster business use of OS data to fuel economic growth. However, Ordnance Survey licensing restrictions limit the downstream use of OS OpenData which contradicts the government’s intention." http://data.gov.uk/sites/default/files/20130717%20OS%20Open%20Data%20Licensing.pdf And on PROW data: http://data.gov.uk/sites/default/files/20130717%20Public%20Rights%20of%20Way.pdf == ODUG's latest Minutes == A couple more quotes: "Ordnance Survey applies additional licensing restrictions to the OS Open Data licence. This restricts the competitive landscape in which they operate with partners and prohibits open re-use of the data. ODUG members believe that OS should have an obligation to release their open data, which is publicly funded, to be consistent with the terms of the Open Government Licence. Following publication of the OS Benefits case it was agreed that the ODUG should make a case to BIS and the Cabinet Office Transparency Board for OS to accept the recommendations in the case." "OS are also claiming that any data regarded as an interpretation of raw data is exempt from FOI requests. The effect would be to block access to public information data sets which have a geographical component of OS derived data. ODUG does not accept this position, and agreed to work on test cases to demonstrate the impact of this." http://data.gov.uk/sites/default/files/minutes%2019th%20july%20final%20version.pdf Bottom line = Feel free to use OS OpenData for OSM mapping :-D Rob ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
