Quite agree, this was exactly what I did when I completed the survey. Failure to get the licence conditions correct shows that its not just users who find the licences confusing.
On 30 January 2014 13:47, Robert Whittaker (OSM lists) < robert.whittaker+...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 25 January 2014 18:46, SK53 <sk53....@gmail.com> wrote: > > Of course it would be much better if everything was released under plain > > OGL, > > Indeed. Coincidently, it seems that OS is currently running a survey > on the future of OS OpenData. So if anyone would like to let them know > that it would be better if they used the standard OGL in place of > their own licence, completing the survey might be a good opportunity > to do so: > > http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/blog/2014/01/help-us-shape-the-future-of-os-opendata/ > > BTW: To return to the question that started this thread, I've been in > touch with Norfolk CC, and they've confirmed that they made a mistake > with the licence description originally. As I suspected, the data > should only have been made available under the OS OpenData Licence. > The pages at http://maps.norfolk.gov.uk/inspire/ and > http://data.gov.uk/dataset/norfolk-public-rights-of-way have now been > corrected. It's a shame, but at least we know where we stand now. > > -- > Robert Whittaker > > _______________________________________________ > 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
