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 li
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
membe
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 cou
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
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 a
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 prevent
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 info
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-gove
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 u
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
l
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.ordnancesu
(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 w
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 a
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 confirmati
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-licen
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
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
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-p
18 matches
Mail list logo
