Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-23 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
On 23 February 2015 at 16:07, Rob Nickerson  wrote:
> I think you are overly risk averse in this case and it could limit
> interesting uses of this data. The risk all along was that the OS could take
> offence to how we are using the data (the local authorities we forced to use
> the OS OpenData licence when they just wanted to make the data available as
> open). Yeah of course the OS cannot retrospectively change the licence of
> things released in the past but the fact that they have removed the licence
> text from their website and put a url redirect to the OGL suggests to me
> that the OS OpenData licence is dead. The risk is gone so lets not pretend
> otherwise as it will just send a negative message to our community.

It depends on whether your aim is to comply with the terms of the
licence, or just avoid being sued for violating it. From the latter
point of view, I'd entirely agree with you. But I'd prefer to see OSM
following the former.

If the boot were on the other foot, I'm sure we'd be none too happy
for some large company to take our data and ignore OSM's licence, on
the grounds that we could never afford to sue them and they didn't
care about any negative public opinion.

Anyway, it's possible I've mis-interpretted OS's reply, and I've
emailed them again to ask for clarification.

Reading the PSMA, clause 2.4 specifically refers to allowing the
distribution of datasets under the "OS OpenData Licence Terms", which
is then essentially defined as the licence OS OpenData is offered
under (rather than the old "OS OpenData Licence" itself) -- which is
now the OGL. So depending on the precise wording of any
correspondence/permission between OS and the other Public Authorities,
it's possible the authority has to change the licence to OGL, as it
would be violating the PSMA if it continues to distribute the data
under a different licence. Although it would be a rather odd agreement
that would allow OS to arbitrarily change the licence without
notifying the other party. And like the GPL, violating software isn't
automatically licensed to any recipients, the author would have the
choice to stop distributing it instead.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-23 Thread Owen Boswarva 
That seems inconsistent. If OSM was concerned about the OS OpenData Licence
before, with respect to OS data, it should still be concerned with respect
to data produced by third parties that continue to use the licence.

The OS OpenData Licence is not "dead" if local authorities and other PSMA
members consider that it still applies to their data. While it is likely
most, if not all, local authorities will follow OS's transition to OGL, OS
cannot speak for them or their IP interests in the meantime. Robert
(Whittaker) is correct.

Owen

On 23 February 2015 at 16:07, Rob Nickerson 
wrote:

Robert wrote:
> >I think that would be jumping the gun slightly. What I understand from
> >OS's answer to me, is that previously released datasets will remain
> >under the OS-ODL, and there is no automatic retrospective change of
> >the licence.
> >
>
> I think you are overly risk averse in this case and it could limit
> interesting uses of this data. The risk all along was that the OS could
> take offence to how we are using the data (the local authorities we forced
> to use the OS OpenData licence when they just wanted to make the data
> available as open). Yeah of course the OS cannot retrospectively change the
> licence of things released in the past but the fact that they have removed
> the licence text from their website and put a url redirect to the OGL
> suggests to me that the OS OpenData licence is dead. The risk is gone so
> lets not pretend otherwise as it will just send a negative message to our
> community.
>
> In time we can and should ask each LA to use the new licence but this
> shouldn't stop anyone from using the data now.
>
> Rob
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-23 Thread Rob Nickerson 
Robert wrote:
>I think that would be jumping the gun slightly. What I understand from
>OS's answer to me, is that previously released datasets will remain
>under the OS-ODL, and there is no automatic retrospective change of
>the licence.
>

I think you are overly risk averse in this case and it could limit
interesting uses of this data. The risk all along was that the OS could
take offence to how we are using the data (the local authorities we forced
to use the OS OpenData licence when they just wanted to make the data
available as open). Yeah of course the OS cannot retrospectively change the
licence of things released in the past but the fact that they have removed
the licence text from their website and put a url redirect to the OGL
suggests to me that the OS OpenData licence is dead. The risk is gone so
lets not pretend otherwise as it will just send a negative message to our
community.

In time we can and should ask each LA to use the new licence but this
shouldn't stop anyone from using the data now.

Rob
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-23 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
On 22 February 2015 at 14:55, Rob Nickerson  wrote:
> I see that the old OS OpenData Licence URL now redirects to OGL version 3 (
> http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf
> ) and as such we can safely assume that the OS consider the licence dead.
> Other UK agencies who have released data under this licence should update
> their text accordingly, if this doesn't happen then a polite email to alert
> them of the change would be encouraged. I see no reason to wait for this
> change to be made prior to using the data in OpenStreetMap. We have a green
> light lets not convince ourselves it's any other colour :-)
>
> In terms of public rights of way released under the OS OpenData licence,
> this means there is nothing blocking our use of this data.

I think that would be jumping the gun slightly. What I understand from
OS's answer to me, is that previously released datasets will remain
under the OS-ODL, and there is no automatic retrospective change of
the licence.

OS themselves have now updated their licence pages for their own OS
OpenData Products, so the current releases of these can now be used
under the OGL. (This doesn't change that much for OSM, since we could
already use most of those datasets anyway under a separate agreement.
But it does mean we can now use CodePoint Open.) Any new datasets
released under PSMA exemptions (e.g. Rights of Way GIS datasets from
local councils) will presumably be under the OGL by default too.

However, for third-party data that was previously released under the
PSMA exemption rules under the OS-ODL, I don't believe that OS could
re-licence them even if they wanted to -- there's no up-grade clause
in the OS-ODL, and OS doesn't own all the rights in the data to allow
them to make that decision. Thus even if OS are happy with a change,
it's up to the third-party rights holder whether or not they wish to
re-licence each dataset.

As far as I understand their reply, OS have said that they will be
happy for OS-derived datasets previously released under OS-ODL to be
re-licenced under the OGL, and will be amending their guidance
accordingly. We can only hope that the OS guidance will also make it
clear that third-parties are free to re-licence existing datasets, and
ideally encourage them to do so. Unless or until any re-licencing
occurs, I'm afraid that the datasets would remain available only under
the OS-ODL, and so cannot be used in OSM. So I think we'll just have
to be patient and wait a little longer...

Once OS release their updated PSMA guidance, we can presumably begin
contacting third parties asking asking them to re-licence their
existing datasets under the OGL.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-22 Thread Rob Nickerson 
Robert wrote:
>I've now had a reply from OS about this. They say:
>
>
>
>Previous such releases will not necessarily be included - only those
>that we are informed about in the future.
>
>If the dataset had already been notified to us, or we had approved a
>derived data exemption application on terms "equivalent to OS OpenData
>terms" then members are not expected to do anything (i.e. there is no
>need to take any retrospective action), as they have already been
>granted "a worldwide, royalty free, perpetual, non-exclusive licence
>to use the Information".
>
>All they need to do is to check that that are attaching the correct
>acknowledgement to the derived data for the licence they are using.
>Nonetheless, they can move across to the Open Government Licence (v3)
>terms if they want to, or (for example) they are refreshing the
>dataset.
>
>This information will be added into the public sector licensing guidance soon.
>


Thanks Robert.

I see that the old OS OpenData Licence URL now redirects to OGL version 3 (
http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf
) and as such we can safely assume that the OS consider the licence dead.
Other UK agencies who have released data under this licence should update
their text accordingly, if this doesn't happen then a polite email to alert
them of the change would be encouraged. I see no reason to wait for this
change to be made prior to using the data in OpenStreetMap. We have a green
light lets not convince ourselves it's any other colour :-)

In terms of public rights of way released under the OS OpenData licence,
this means there is nothing blocking our use of this data. A ground survey
is still recommended though.

Best,
Rob
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-20 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
On 18 February 2015 at 13:52, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists)
 wrote:
> The OS OpenData Licence is also used by Local Authorities and other
> Public Bodies when licensing Geographic Data that's been derived from
> OS Products under a Public Sector Mapping Agreement exemption. The
> licence has prevented the use of this data in OSM up to this point. I
> would imagine that the announcement from OS means that the licence
> they allow third parties to release OS-derived data under will also
> change to the OGL. But at the moment, it's not clear if or how this
> will happen, and whether it will be retrospectively applied to
> previous releases. I've contacted OS to ask about this
> (https://twitter.com/rjw62/status/567741494686384128), and hope to
> receive a reply shortly.

I've now had a reply from OS about this. They say:



Previous such releases will not necessarily be included - only those
that we are informed about in the future.

If the dataset had already been notified to us, or we had approved a
derived data exemption application on terms "equivalent to OS OpenData
terms" then members are not expected to do anything (i.e. there is no
need to take any retrospective action), as they have already been
granted "a worldwide, royalty free, perpetual, non-exclusive licence
to use the Information".

All they need to do is to check that that are attaching the correct
acknowledgement to the derived data for the licence they are using.
Nonetheless, they can move across to the Open Government Licence (v3)
terms if they want to, or (for example) they are refreshing the
dataset.

This information will be added into the public sector licensing guidance soon.



I think it means that new PSMA exemptions will use the OGL by default.
For existing ones, the public authority isn't under any obligation to
change the licence, but will be able to do so if they want to. I've
posted further details/background at
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/notes/os-odl-to-ogl.html

It might take some individual contacting of councils etc. to persuade
them to change their licences, but in general this is good news.
Hopefully OS will issue good guidance to make things as simple as
possible for public authorities to understand and act on.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-19 Thread Owen Boswarva 
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  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  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
>>  metaz...@fastmail.net
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015, at 12:04 AM, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>>
>>   On 17 February 2015 at 23:57, Matthijs Melissen <
>> i...@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/
>>  *___

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-19 Thread Michael Collinson 
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 > 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
metaz...@fastmail.net 
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015, at 12:04 AM, Rob Nickerson wrote:

On 17 February 2015 at 23:57, Matthijs Melissen
mailto:i...@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@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org 
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb




___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb


_

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-19 Thread Gervase Markham 
On 19/02/15 11:11, Tom Hughes wrote:
> Why would it make any difference? As far as I know Nominatim already
> uses the Codepoint Open data?

Well, if it did, wouldn't it be able to find every postcode in Britain?
The "Results from OpenStreetMap Nominatim" section of the search results
often turns up results for postcodes other than the one requested.

Here are some neither FreeThePostcode nor Nominatim can find:

* S9 3DJ (should be Fay Crescent, Sheffield)
* EN1 2EE (should be Forsyth Place, Enfield)

Here are some Nominatim seems unable to find:

* EN2 0QG (gives a list of results for EN2 0QP)
* YO11 2TT (gives a list of results for YO11 2HD)


(Incidentally, when it does find an exact match, why on earth doesn't
it, you know, take the map to that location? That doesn't seem an
unreasonable expectation.)

Gerv


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-19 Thread Tom Hughes 

On 19/02/15 10:58, Gervase Markham wrote:

On 18/02/15 13:52, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:

In the immediate future, it won't have much effect, since we already
had separate permission to use all but one of the OS Open Data
products. The exception was CodePoint Open. Once OS updates their
licence page 
(http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/licensing/using-creating-data-with-os-products/os-opendata.html
still refers to the OS OpenData Licence) then we should be able to
make use of CodePoint Open too.


Hallelujah! Does that mean that openstreetmap.org would finally be able
to find postcodes when I type them in?


Why would it make any difference? As far as I know Nominatim already 
uses the Codepoint Open data?


Tom

--
Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu)
http://compton.nu/

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-19 Thread Gervase Markham 
On 18/02/15 13:52, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) wrote:
> In the immediate future, it won't have much effect, since we already
> had separate permission to use all but one of the OS Open Data
> products. The exception was CodePoint Open. Once OS updates their
> licence page 
> (http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/licensing/using-creating-data-with-os-products/os-opendata.html
> still refers to the OS OpenData Licence) then we should be able to
> make use of CodePoint Open too.

Hallelujah! Does that mean that openstreetmap.org would finally be able
to find postcodes when I type them in?

The lack of reliably good results in this, is the one feature which
keeps me using Google Maps much the time.

Gerv



___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-18 Thread Owen Boswarva 
(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  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
> metaz...@fastmail.net
>
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015, at 12:04 AM, Rob Nickerson wrote:
>
> On 17 February 2015 at 23:57, Matthijs Melissen 
> 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@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-GB mailing list
> Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
>
>
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-18 Thread Jo Walsh 

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 metaz...@fastmail.net



On Wed, Feb 18, 2015, at 12:04 AM, Rob Nickerson wrote:
> On 17 February 2015 at 23:57, Matthijs Melissen
>  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@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-18 Thread Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) 
On 18 February 2015 at 00:04, Rob Nickerson  wrote:
> On 17 February 2015 at 23:57, Matthijs Melissen 
> 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?
>
> 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/

I haven't re-read them recently, but as far as I know OGL 3 is fine
for use in OSM. In particular, it says:

"These terms are compatible with the Creative Commons Attribution
License 4.0 and the Open Data Commons Attribution License, both of
which license copyright and database rights. 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 ODbL is essentially just a stricter version of the Open Data
Commons Attribution License (ODB-By), so if it's ok to use OGL stuff
under ODC-By, then it's also ok under ODbL.

On 18 February 2015 at 12:47, Dave F.  wrote:
> What benefits for OSM, especially end users (ie mappers adding nodes & ways)
> will this bring? Will there be extra OS products we can use? or use existing
> one in new ways?

In the immediate future, it won't have much effect, since we already
had separate permission to use all but one of the OS Open Data
products. The exception was CodePoint Open. Once OS updates their
licence page 
(http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/licensing/using-creating-data-with-os-products/os-opendata.html
still refers to the OS OpenData Licence) then we should be able to
make use of CodePoint Open too.

The OS OpenData Licence is also used by Local Authorities and other
Public Bodies when licensing Geographic Data that's been derived from
OS Products under a Public Sector Mapping Agreement exemption. The
licence has prevented the use of this data in OSM up to this point. I
would imagine that the announcement from OS means that the licence
they allow third parties to release OS-derived data under will also
change to the OGL. But at the moment, it's not clear if or how this
will happen, and whether it will be retrospectively applied to
previous releases. I've contacted OS to ask about this
(https://twitter.com/rjw62/status/567741494686384128), and hope to
receive a reply shortly.

Robert.

-- 
Robert Whittaker

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-18 Thread Dave F. 

On 17/02/2015 22:38, Rob Nickerson wrote:

Hi All,

At long last the open data licence scene in the UK has now become a
lot simpler as OS have ditched their OS OpenData Licence and replaced
it with the standard OGL:

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/2015/02/were-using-the-open-government-licence-to-encourage-greater-use-of-os-opendata-products/

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

Good news for OpenStreetMap :-)



Hi Rob

What benefits for OSM, especially end users (ie mappers adding nodes & 
ways) will this bring? Will there be extra OS products we can use? or 
use existing one in new ways?


Cheers
Dave F.




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-17 Thread Rob Nickerson 
On 17 February 2015 at 23:57, Matthijs Melissen 
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@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

Re: [Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-17 Thread Matthijs Melissen 
On 17 February 2015 at 22:38, Rob Nickerson  wrote:
> At long last the open data licence scene in the UK has now become a lot
> simpler as OS have ditched their OS OpenData Licence and replaced it with
> the standard OGL

At first sight this seems good news.

However:

| In particular, one of these sticking points concerned the issue of
sublicensing
| and giving greater clarity as to the applicability of OGL terms to
sublicensees,
| a matter that has been addressed in this new version of the OGL.

OS's sublicensing terms were the reason OS ODL and ODbL are incompatible:
http://robert.mathmos.net/osm/notes/os-open-data.html

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

___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb

[Talk-GB] OS OpenData now OGL

2015-02-17 Thread Rob Nickerson 
Hi All,

At long last the open data licence scene in the UK has now become a lot
simpler as OS have ditched their OS OpenData Licence and replaced it with
the standard OGL:

http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/2015/02/were-using-the-open-government-licence-to-encourage-greater-use-of-os-opendata-products/

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

Good news for OpenStreetMap :-)

Rob
___
Talk-GB mailing list
Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb