On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 1:14 PM, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net>wrote:
> Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: > > So presumably we also need confirmation from Ordnance > > Survey that they're happy for their content to be > > distributed under DbCL (or at least under the ODbL+DbCL > > combination). > > I think that's a red herring, isn't it? ODbL imposes additional > requirements > over and above DbCL. OSM is not distributing OS OpenData under DbCL alone, > nor does it permit anyone else to do so (subject to the usual 'Substantial' > test, which is of course Database Directive stuff and therefore governs > OS's > existing data distribution business anyway). > > ODbL licenses a database of content. The content of the database can carry any license of the author's choosing. Because the OS have not specified any other content license the assumption must be that their content is still licensed under the OS OpenData license. You cannot just presume otherwise.
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb