[odc-discuss] Ordnance Survey Data In Produced Works

Rob Myers rob at robmyers.org
Thu Sep 30 12:42:55 UTC 2010

On 09/29/2010 04:37 AM, Jordan S Hatcher wrote:
> Thanks for the question!
> Slight delay as was waiting on impending announcement from UK gov on new licensing terms.  Something should be out soon but will go ahead and respond as will still be relevant.


This one? :-)


> Two immediate thoughts:
> -- one is that the above is written assuming that you'd be totally
> relicensing the OS licensed data under the ODbL, whereas there's always
> the option that you could have both licenses directly apply to users.

Dual licencing? That's a good idea but I don't think it would work for OSM.

> -- the second is that unless otherwise "specified by the Data
> Provider" the requirement to keep notices intact (including the OS
> license notice) in 4.2c together with the 4.3 notice for produced works
> would seem to "acknowledge the copyright and the source of the Data".

It would on Produced Works but would it be possible to create a Produced 
Work under a licence that allowed the notice to be removed on works 
derived/adapted from the Produced Work?


Database (under DbCL/ODbL)
Produced Work (under the imaginary "You May Remove Attribution" Licence)
Derivative of produced Work (under the imaginary "No Attribution" Licence)

If not, why not? :-)

> Note that the DbCL is essentially public domain as it's very liberal,
> so if this is to require attribution over just the contents of an
> ODbL database, then perhaps the DbCL is not appropriate in this
> context?

Forgive my ignorance but if the contents is geodata can it actually be 
copyrighted in the UK?

> One alternative is always to have multiple licenses for the
> contents.

As this is for OSM I assume the aim is to regularize the licence. I'm 
starting to wonder whether OSM shouldn't just have a "kernel" of data 
that it owns under DbCL/ODbL.

Thank you very much for all your answers.

- Rob.

More information about the odc-discuss mailing list