Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
Or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or Fake SteveC, depending on your particular affiliation. There was a rumour, though only a rumour ;-) Cheers Andy -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-accepting-the-new-contributo r-terms-tp6483857p6503476.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ 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 and accepting the new contributor terms
On 20 June 2011 16:44, Steve Coast st...@asklater.com wrote: On 6/19/2011 1:16 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: I still take the view that *as the CTs are written* clause 2 would apply to all contributions, which makes me uncomfortable signing them. However, since the CTs represent a contract between myself and OSMF, if it can be confirmed (eg by a statement from the OSMF chairman) that your statement about the CTs is the official policy of OSMF, then I'd be prepared to sign them based on that assurance. I can't make a statement for the OSMF without going to the board, but that's my understanding, Mike is correct. As I've said to you off-list, since LWG's interpretation of the CTs results in such a significant difference from what I'd consider to be the literal meaning, I'd appreciated it if you could check with the other OSMF board members, so you then can make an official statement about Michael's post. If you can confirm Michael's post does indeed represent OSMF's views, then I can agree the CTs on that basis. Thanks, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: I'd appreciated it if you could check with the other OSMF board members, so you then can make an official statement about Michael's post. I'm sure you're doing this for the right reasons, but there's something faintly amusing about the appeals to an ever-increasing authority. First you asked for a statement from LWG, and Mike duly obliged. Then you decided you needed one from the OSMF Chairman, and Steve duly obliged. Now you're asking for one from the whole OSMF Board. I'm sure this will all be sorted out happily in the end, but please, could you reassure the rest of us that this isn't going to drag on until you've got a signed statement from the Pope?[1] cheers Richard [1] Or the Archbishop of Canterbury, or Fake SteveC, depending on your particular affiliation. -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-accepting-the-new-contributor-terms-tp6483857p6503476.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
I think it'll probably require divine revelation ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
On 22 June 2011 09:55, Richard Fairhurst rich...@systemed.net wrote: Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: I'd appreciated it if you could check with the other OSMF board members, so you then can make an official statement about Michael's post. I'm sure you're doing this for the right reasons, but there's something faintly amusing about the appeals to an ever-increasing authority. First you asked for a statement from LWG, and Mike duly obliged. Then you decided you needed one from the OSMF Chairman, and Steve duly obliged. Now you're asking for one from the whole OSMF Board. I think that's a somewhat unfair summary of events. I wanted clarification from LWG as to whether they thought OS OpenData is compatible with the CTs. Given they are asking individual mappers to sign these, that's not an unreasonable position to take. And their response was a long time coming. They first ignored several emails I sent, then only dealt with half of the question. Finally, it turned out the difference of opinion was caused by a completely different interpretation of what clause 2 applied to. Given the CTs are contract is with OSMF and not LWG, and this interpretation differs from that assumed by the only lawyers I know of who've commented publicly on the CTs, then I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for an official statement from OSMF as to their interpretation. So that's what I asked for (suggesting it might come from the chairman). Steve C said he was unable to give such an official statement without checking with the board -- which is therefore what I have asked him to do. That's hardly going to a higher authority when I'm only repeating a previous unfulfilled request. As you can see, I have made a commitment to agreeing to the CTs if OSMF can officially confirm that their interpretation of the CTs is what Mike wrote at http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-June/011931.html . I would not have made such a commitment if I didn't fully intent to honour it. You'll also notice that I (deliberately) did not make such a commitment previously when asking for clarification -- as it was unclear exactly what form that clarification would take and what the consequences would be. That's my position and you can take it or leave it. I really don't see how flaming me in this list is helpful to the community. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
Robert Whittaker wrote: That's my position and you can take it or leave it. I really don't see how flaming me in this list is helpful to the community. Blimey. It was meant as a good-natured jokey e-mail, a gentle dig at best. But if it helps, the Archbishop of Canterbury's house in Charlbury is mapped in OSM if you _do_ want to take it further. ;) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-accepting-the-new-contributor-terms-tp6483857p6503623.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
Richard Fairhurst wrote: Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: I'd appreciated it if you could check with the other OSMF board members, so you then can make an official statement about Michael's post. I'm sure you're doing this for the right reasons, but there's something faintly amusing about the appeals to an ever-increasing authority. First you asked for a statement from LWG, and Mike duly obliged. Then you decided you needed one from the OSMF Chairman, and Steve duly obliged. Now you're asking for one from the whole OSMF Board. Well, the best reassurance would be to update the actual Contributor Terms and to refine the wording of clause 1 and 2 that they become clear even to a reasonably intelligent layman. This confusion is a major aspect of the CT and has profound influences on both current mappers of what they are allowed to add and future mappers when they decide on the consequences of triggering the license clause. So being absolutely clear on what clause 1 and 2 mean for data to which the OSM mappers does not have the rights, but contributes it by the virtue of a sub-license, warrants some effort from all involved sides. At the moment it seems not even the intent of those clauses were clear, let alone how and if the legal text expresses that intent. Otherwise we wouldn't be having this discussion over and over for a long time now. As Andrzej has said on legal-talk ( http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-June/006187.html ) I believe there have been conflicting (private) statements from member of the LWG and OSMF Board, as to what the intent of clause 1 and 2 are and the views seem to change over time. So the statements of Michael and Steve are an important step forward in getting this ambiguity resolved, but I am not sure how much value they would have in front of court, given that both emails explicitly said they were not representing the official view. So this is not a appeals to an ever-increasing authority but simply a wish from the community to get a clear and official statement of how this part of the legal contract is intended to work. Therefore, imho updating the CT to clarify them would be the correct and unambiguous thing to do. Second best to that would be an official and quotable statement by the OSMF (i.e. the contract party) as to what their intent with respect to this issue is. Kai -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OS-OpenData-and-accepting-the-new-contributor-terms-tp6483857p6505718.html Sent from the Great Britain mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
On 6/19/2011 1:16 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: I still take the view that *as the CTs are written* clause 2 would apply to all contributions, which makes me uncomfortable signing them. However, since the CTs represent a contract between myself and OSMF, if it can be confirmed (eg by a statement from the OSMF chairman) that your statement about the CTs is the official policy of OSMF, then I'd be prepared to sign them based on that assurance. I can't make a statement for the OSMF without going to the board, but that's my understanding, Mike is correct. Steve ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
Steve Coast steve@... writes: I can't make a statement for the OSMF without going to the board, but that's my understanding, Mike is correct. Would this not resolve the Nearmap question? As I understand it they did not want to write a blank cheque allowing use under an unspecified licence. But if the only requirement is to be compatible with CC-BY-SA and ODbL/DbCL, they might be happy to reinstate permission to use their imagery. Potentially, there are other data sources in a similar situation. An official statement from the OSMF confirming this interpretation of the CTs (or, better still, a clarifying paragraph added to the CTs themselves) might clear up a lot of non-acceptances. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
On 18 June 2011 15:01, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: In other words, for the LWG, if data is compatible with *current* license terms, then there is no problem contributing it and accepting the contributor terms. Many thanks for this. If that's how the Contributor Terms are to be interpreted then that's fantastic, as it means I personally only need to worry about OS OpenData being compatible with CC-By-SA -- which I believe there's no issue with at all. One has to wonder why LWG has taken so long to explain this though -- if you'd told me this when I first emailed you with my argument as to why OS OpenData wasn't compatible with Clause 2 of the CTs, you'd have saved a lot of trouble. Nevertheless, LWG's interpretation seems contrary to what a lot of people were assuming. In particular, Francis Davey, the only Lawyer that I know of who's publicly discussed the CTs, seems to take the position that clause 2 applies to all contributions in his posts on legal-talk. (In particular, he stated that you couldn't comply with the CTs and make use of CC-By licensed data.) NearMap's lawyers also apparently took the view that their CC-By-SA data wasn't compatible with the CTs because of clause 2, and this wasn't challenged by LWG. At worst the CTs are incorrectly drafted, and at best they're sufficiently ambiguous that a trained lawyers interpret them in a completely different manner to LWG. This really needs addressing, and I'd like to see it done before the move to phase 4, or at least as quickly as possible thereafter. You really should make sure the wording of contracts correctly express your intentions before you ask people to sign them. I still take the view that *as the CTs are written* clause 2 would apply to all contributions, which makes me uncomfortable signing them. However, since the CTs represent a contract between myself and OSMF, if it can be confirmed (eg by a statement from the OSMF chairman) that your statement about the CTs is the official policy of OSMF, then I'd be prepared to sign them based on that assurance. Best wishes, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
On 17 June 2011 18:04, Ed Loach e...@loach.me.uk wrote: Andy Allan also provided a good argued answer to a similar question to yours on http://help.openstreetmap.org [2] in case you haven't seen it. I hadn't seen it, so thanks. But there's also a response below it explaining why Ed's reasoning is incorrect. To support the view that clause 2 acts independently of clause 1 (ie you must comply with both of them) Francis Davey (who is a lawyer) has offered his opinion that you can't even add CC-By data to OSM and comply with the CTs [3]. This certainly wouldn't be the case if you *only* had to follow clause 1. We're still waiting to hear LWG's view on this, and how they think the CTs are supposed to operate... Robert. [2] http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/5792/can-i-accept-the-new-contributor-terms-if-ive-contributed-data-from-ordnance-survey-opendata [3] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2011-April/005920.html -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
On 17/06/2011 14:50, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: On 16 June 2011 17:50, Michael Collinsonm...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Here is as much information as I can give. It is not conclusive so I would summarise by saying that I *personally* (great emphasis!) have some contributions derived from OS StreetView data and have accepted the new terms without qualms. I explain my reasons below and what I intend to do. I hope they help you make up your own mind either way if you are in a similar situation. Thank you for this, but I believe it only addresses half of the issue, namely whether OS OpenData can be distributed under ODbL. The other half is whether OS OpenData is compatible with the OSM Contributor Terms. Hi Robert, Summary: You only need to consider compatibility with ODbL. If OS OpenData is compatible with ODbL, then it is compatible with the OSM Contributor Terms. [Aside: The future is the future and unknown. An import or derivation from a third-party license restricted resource may be incompatible in the future and have to be removed, or it may not ... that is something that the local community, GB mappers, should think about collectively but it is not something for the LWG to control.] Detailed answer: This is a general question about imported/derived data where the third-party wishes to exert some restriction and not OS OpenData-specific. The LWG is very keen not to trap future mapping generations into a specific license whose effective span is well over 100 years. As a contributor you do not know what a future license will be or indeed if it will change at all. Nor does the LWG and nor does the third-party licensor, (Nearmap in Australia raised this issue). A future license may clash with the third-party license, it may not. The third-party license may follow a general trend towards being less restrictive, it may not. We therefore re-wrote the whole of clause 1 to address it. I highlight this specific sentence: 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 ... The key word is current. Pedantically, this means CC-BY-SA right now, but the LWG hopes that you will also consider ODbL. The LWG would like to insert some clear wording into clause 2 like, to the extent to which you are able, but that unfortunately causes some very unfortunate side-effects that have been discussed on the legal-talk list. We'll certainly continue considering it for a future release, but it is not easy. In other words, for the LWG, if data is compatible with *current* license terms, then there is no problem contributing it and accepting the contributor terms. Hope that helps, Mike ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
Michael Collinson mike@... writes: In other words, for the LWG, if data is compatible with *current* license terms, then there is no problem contributing it and accepting the contributor terms. This is a nice explanation. Could it be added as a clarifying paragraph to the contributor terms themselves? -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
On 16 June 2011 17:50, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Here is as much information as I can give. It is not conclusive so I would summarise by saying that I *personally* (great emphasis!) have some contributions derived from OS StreetView data and have accepted the new terms without qualms. I explain my reasons below and what I intend to do. I hope they help you make up your own mind either way if you are in a similar situation. Thank you for this, but I believe it only addresses half of the issue, namely whether OS OpenData can be distributed under ODbL. The other half is whether OS OpenData is compatible with the OSM Contributor Terms. If I've understood things correctly, the CTs (in particular Clause 2) go further than ODbL compatibility, and require you to have additional rights to grant to OSMF on your contributions. My reading of clause 2 is that it requires your contributions to be able to be distributed under any free and open license. Some have disputed this view, claiming that the intent of the CTs is only that you must warrant that your data is compatible with the current licenses. Can you confirm LWG's position on this, and if it's been subject to legal review? Can you also confirm whether or not the legal review of Os OpenData also looked at the compatibility of OS OpenData with clause 2 of the OSM Contributor Terms? I've provided reasoning at http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/Robert%20Whittaker as to why I believe the two are not compatible. I've yet to see any argument to explain why my reasoning there is incorrect. Given that I've made use of OS OpenData in the past, I could probably be persuaded to sign the CTs based on the requirements of clause 1 (ODbL compatibility), but not with the additional requirements of clause 2. Nevertheless, it is unacceptable in my view that individual mappers are being forced to make complicated legal decisions like this, when even the LWG is not prepared to do so officially. Unless you want to postpone the move to phase 4 or have another solution, I would suggest that you must amend the CTs to provide an explicit exemption from clauses 1 and 2 for any IP connected with OS OpenData. This way, everyone could happily sign the CTs, and OSMF/LWG can sort out the legal issues surrounding whether or not they are able to distribute OS OpenData derived content at their leisure. LWG should also issue firm guidance on whether or not CT-accepted mappers may continue to use OS OpenData until these issues are resolved. Regards, Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
On Fri, 2011-06-17 at 13:50 +0100, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: If I've understood things correctly, the CTs (in particular Clause 2) go further than ODbL compatibility, and require you to have additional rights to grant to OSMF on your contributions. My reading of clause 2 is that it requires your contributions to be able to be distributed under any free and open license. Some have disputed this view, claiming that the intent of the CTs is only that you must warrant that your data is compatible with the current licenses. Well, since the contributor terms are an agreement made as a contributor, one is not necessarily making any statement about the compatibility of OS open data - one could lie, or think its fine, or simply take a pragmatic view that current licenses are fine and someone else can worry about it further down the line if and when it becomes a problem, with a reasonable assumption that the OSMF aren't going to sue (I assume that's who the agreement is made with?). cheers, Henry ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
If OSMF were to claim that the CTs prove that all its data is relicensable to anything that's free and open then they're daft. In practice it's relicensable to something that's a bit narrower than that, and which would almost certainly comply with the spirit of the OS license, if not the (similarly impractical) letter. It's grey, it's going to stay grey. If you want white, try elsewhere. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
On 17 June 2011 14:11, Henry Gomersall h...@cantab.net wrote: Well, since the contributor terms are an agreement made as a contributor, one is not necessarily making any statement about the compatibility of OS open data I'm sorry, but if you've used OS OpenData in previous contributions, that's precisely what you are doing by agreeing to clause 2. - one could lie, or think its fine, or I'm afraid I don't find a community that asks its members to sign something knowing that it it likely to be false to be a very healthy community to be part of. If it's believed that OS OpenData should be kept in OSM, then we should amend the CTs to make it clear that it can be. simply take a pragmatic view that current licenses are fine and someone else can worry about it further down the line if and when it becomes a problem, with a reasonable assumption that the OSMF aren't going to sue (I assume that's who the agreement is made with?). But the whole point of clause 2 in the current CTs is to ensure that we only have to worry about this compatibility issue once, and don't have to come back to it with every license change. It's within OSMF's powers to amend the Contributor Terms to remove the requirement to guarantee future license compatibility if that is what they / the community wished to do. Given that they have not done so, one has to assume that they don't wish people to sign if they cannot give that guarantee. It's therefore not helpful to the community if people sign to agree to something that isn't true. If lots of people have been doing this, then it makes clause 2 rather pointless, and is even more of a reason to remove or amend it. Robert. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
On 17 June 2011 14:19, Richard Mann richard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: If OSMF were to claim that the CTs prove that all its data is relicensable to anything that's free and open then they're daft. In practice it's relicensable to something that's a bit narrower than that, and which would almost certainly comply with the spirit of the OS license, if not the (similarly impractical) letter. It's grey, it's going to stay grey. If you want white, try elsewhere. Why does it have to stay grey? If OSMF is happy to allow OS OpenData to be kept in OSM, then they could simply amend the contributor terms to explicitly allow it.* Then everything would be clear, and those who've used OS OpenData could sign the CTs with a clear conscience. If people have been signing anyway, this won't allow any additional 'tainting' of the OSM database beyond what there already is, but it would save a lot of discussion time and the risk of losing valuable contributions and contributors. Robert. * In fact I've previously argued that the CTs would be far better if they were based on a list of explicitly allowable licenses / sources, rather than requiring individual mappers to make legal decisions on license compatibility. This would be clearer for everyone, has more chance of people understanding what they can and can't use, and so has more chance of keeping 'undesirable' data (whatever that might be) from getting in to the OSM database. OSMF would then have a much better idea of where they stood in relation to any future license change. I've yet to hear an explanation of why this approach wasn't adopted. -- Robert Whittaker ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
Robert wrote: My reading of clause 2 is that it requires your contributions to be able to be distributed under any free and open license. Some have disputed this view, claiming that the intent of the CTs is only that you must warrant that your data is compatible with the current licenses. I think you're overly concerned about clause 2 when 1a and 1b of the CTs[1] seem fairly clear, in particular: 1a) 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 And if the OSM licence ever changes again and the data is then deemed incompatible then the OSMF can delete it (the rest of 1a and 1b). Andy Allan also provided a good argued answer to a similar question to yours on http://help.openstreetmap.org [2] in case you haven't seen it. Ed [1] http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/License/Contributor_Terms [2] http://help.openstreetmap.org/questions/5792/can-i-accept-the-new-co ntributor-terms-if-ive-contributed-data-from-ordnance-survey-opendat a ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
You keep mentioning the OSMF when I think you really mean the LWG. On 6/17/2011 9:44 AM, Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: On 17 June 2011 14:19, Richard Mannrichard.mann.westoxf...@gmail.com wrote: If OSMF were to claim that the CTs prove that all its data is relicensable to anything that's free and open then they're daft. In practice it's relicensable to something that's a bit narrower than that, and which would almost certainly comply with the spirit of the OS license, if not the (similarly impractical) letter. It's grey, it's going to stay grey. If you want white, try elsewhere. Why does it have to stay grey? If OSMF is happy to allow OS OpenData to be kept in OSM, then they could simply amend the contributor terms to explicitly allow it.* Then everything would be clear, and those who've used OS OpenData could sign the CTs with a clear conscience. If people have been signing anyway, this won't allow any additional 'tainting' of the OSM database beyond what there already is, but it would save a lot of discussion time and the risk of losing valuable contributions and contributors. Robert. * In fact I've previously argued that the CTs would be far better if they were based on a list of explicitly allowable licenses / sources, rather than requiring individual mappers to make legal decisions on license compatibility. This would be clearer for everyone, has more chance of people understanding what they can and can't use, and so has more chance of keeping 'undesirable' data (whatever that might be) from getting in to the OSM database. OSMF would then have a much better idea of where they stood in relation to any future license change. I've yet to hear an explanation of why this approach wasn't adopted. ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
[Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
Here is as much information as I can give. It is not conclusive so I would summarise by saying that I *personally* (great emphasis!) have some contributions derived from OS StreetView data and have accepted the new terms without qualms. I explain my reasons below and what I intend to do. I hope they help you make up your own mind either way if you are in a similar situation. The License Working Group has sought legal advice, as per instructions previously on the OS website, on whether OS OpenData can be used to derive information distributed under the Open Database License 1.0. Our understanding from that is, yes, it is OK. However, we understand indirectly and informally that the OS may not be happy with that. The LWG is therefore very reluctant to issue any clear statement. We believe we comply with the new Open Government License. However, the OS has regretfully decided not to use that but instead incorporate it into their own unique license. The only provision that we can see that might be contentious is this: The same attribution statements must be contained in any sub-licenses of the Information that you grant, together with a requirement that any further sub-license do the same. I.e. at the most extreme, could it be that school children making a map in a different country have to use the specific attribution language specified by the OS? I have now written directly to the Ordnance Survey legal advisor and will keep you informed of any developments as openly as I can. The next bit is a *personal* statement from me as an OpenStreetMap contributor. I have traced some woods, buildings and used some road names in Yorkshire from OS StreetView. I have tagged each with an OS source tag. I have accepted the new contributor terms. I do so because the OSMF did what the OS asked and that was ask their own lawyer and not contact the OS directly. The OSMF understanding from that advice was that there is no incompatibility. There have been no cease-and-desist demands from the OS. I respect IP rights and if they are potentially unhappy, that concerns me. I also do not want to upset other mappers. I have therefore stopped deriving anything at all from OS OpenData. I am slowly replacing woods and buildings from the now available Bing imagery ... it is better anyway. If the OS conveys a direct compatibiliity message, I will start using it again. If the reverse I complete the job and remove everything because I have a new understanding and should comply with our contributor terms. Regards, Mike [1] OS Licence: http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/docs/os-opendata-licence.pdf ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms
Michael Thank you for such a full explanation - Original Message - From: Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz To: talk-gb talk-gb@openstreetmap.org Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 5:50 PM Subject: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData and accepting the new contributor terms [snipped] regretfully decided not to use that but instead incorporate it into their own unique license. The only provision that we can see that might be contentious is this: The same attribution statements must be contained in any sub-licenses of the Information that you grant, together with a requirement that any further sub-license do the same. As this is the only provision that the LWG can see might be contentious, can I ask if the LWG specifically asked their legal advisors about that point, and if so did they give any detailed reasoning why in their view it wasn't a problem. Regards David ___ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
