The confusion partly lies with data.gov.uk. There are two Codepoint Open datasets listed, one put there by Ordnance Survey (BIS), http://data.gov.uk/dataset/code-point-open
And one placed by the English Department for Communitiesm and Local Government (CLG). http://data.gov.uk/dataset/os-code-point-open The licence statements differ. The CLG version states Open Government Licence baldly, but does state the OS pdf (not hyperlinked), while the OS/BIS version says Licence ["Use limitation dependent upon licence"] Access constraints ["For further details on licensing see http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/business/licences/index.html";] which is a little bizarre. It would be very possible for app developers to rely wholly on the bald statement on the CLG version. Indeed, if you were mashing up OSM and Codepoint Open, while including the Royal Mail and National Statistics attribution, that should be OK. However, the perpetual attribution requirement (and its odd that National Statistics is in there, as ONS has always been more open e.g. census output area shapefiles) is quite well buried. Paul Bivand On Wednesday 11 Apr 2012 08:57:53 Robert Whittaker (OSM) wrote: > On 10 April 2012 09:20, Chris Hill <o...@raggedred.net> wrote: > > IMHO there never was a problem. OS said they couldn't speak for Royal > > Mail, which is fair enough, but it doesn't mean there is an actual > > problem. Codepoint Open now features on the data.gov.uk website as > > something that uses the Open Government Licence, and a little web app > > using OSM and Codepoint Open data is shown there too. > > Have you got a link for Code-Point Open being available under the UK > Open Government License? If it is indeed available under OGL, then I > would agree with you that there isn't a problem. > > However, certainly for the version you can download from the Ordnance > Survey website, the license is not OGL, but OGL plus an additional > perpetual attribution requirement [1]. My understanding is that this > additional attribution requirement is not compatible with ODbL, and > that's why LWG had to get special permission from OS to include things > derived from other OS OpenData products in OSM. That permission was > granted by OS for everything except Code-Point Open (which they didn't > own all the rights for) [2]. OS then said they needed to consult Royal > Mail about Code-Point [2]. From the message [3] relayed by Michael > Collinson, it's not entirely clear exactly what discussions there were > between OS and Royal Mail. But from the wording of [3] I would guess > that OS did consult Royal Mail, and Royal Mail refused to to waive the > perpetual attribution requirement. This would then leave Code-Point > Open incompatible with ODbL. > > Whatever happened between OS and Royal Mail, [3] seems quite clear > that LWG's view is that the license for Code-Point Open is not > compatible with ODbL, and thus it can't be added to OSM. So whatever > your personal views on the licenses, you shouldn't contribute data > derived from Code-Point Open to OSM. If anyone wants to distribute > Code-Point Open derived data themselves under ODbL (or a similar > license) then that's obviously up to them, but it would be courteous > to the OSM community if anyone doing so made LWG's position on the > incompatibility of their data clear, to prevent innocent mappers using > the (potentially tainted) data to contribute to OSM. > > Robert. > > [1] http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf > [2] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2011-July/011995.html > [3] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-gb/2012-January/012688.html
_______________________________________________ Talk-GB mailing list Talk-GB@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-gb
