All datasets available under the OS OpenData Licence (Ordnance Survey).

Status: 
ODUG developing business case
Data request description: 
== Background == Following a December 2009 to March 2010 Government Consultation (Response: [1]), Ordnance Survey began releasing data for “free re-use” on April 1st 2010. The datasets were made available under the product name “OS OpenData”, and the full product suite was released under a brand new licence that shared the same name as the product suite, that is the “OS OpenData Licence” [2]. The OS OpenData Licence comprises the standard Open Government Licence (OGL) [3] plus an additional leading section added by Ordnance Survey. On release, there was significant concern within the GIS / Geospatial industry as to the exact connotations of the additional leading text. It is still unclear as to what additional obligations this places on the User. Today, geospatial datasets are also being released by Local Authorities. Much of this data has originally been created using an Ordnance Survey base map (often because this was a legal requirement, or was recommended by Central Government departments, such as DEFRA). As such, Ordnance Survey classify this as “derived work”, and therefore require each Local Authority to apply for exemption under the Public Sector Mapping Agreement for each individual dataset they wish to provide for free re-use. This exemption process is described in the section 2.25 of the PSMA User Guide [4] and is fully documented in section 2.5 of the PSMA Licence itself [5]. If successful the Local Authority is allowed to release their data, however they are required to use the OS OpenData Licence. The same applies to not only Local authorities wishing to release their own data, but also other public sector organisations/departments. It is also worth noting that if one Local Authority applies for exemption for, for example Public Rights of Way, and is successful, then this ruling is not extended to all Local Authorities. That is, if other Local Authorities would also like to release their Public Rights of Way data for free re-use, then they will also have to go through the same exemption process. To summarise, Ordnance Survey provide a product suite named “OS OpenData” released under the OS OpenData Licence. Ordnance Survey further require that any Government body/department wishing to release geospatial data also use the same OS OpenData Licence (although confusingly, the data is does not become part of the "OS OpenData" branded product suite). The licence is an altered version of the standard Open Government Licence, and is causing significant confusing amongst the GIS/geospatial industry and the OpenStreetMap community [note 1]. To eliminate this confusion and ensure that the datasets are made available under a truly free re-use licence, I have the following three requests: == Requests == === Request 1 === Based on Statement 1, set out in The National Archives report entitled "Information Fair Trader Scheme Report, Ordnance Survey, February–March 2011" [7] IFTS ensures that re-users of public sector information can be confident that they will be treated reasonably and fairly by public sector information providers. This has not been the case with the Ordnance Survey OpenData Licence. The same report shows a stark contrast between how open OPSI view the OS OpenData Licence (as in "simple terms", "free re-use without restriction") and the reality (restrictive, confusing and overly complex). Can I please request, that you (The Open Data User Group) work with Ordnance Survey and OPSI to eliminate the use of the Ordnance Survey OpenData Licence in all cases where public sector organisations have had to request exemption under the Public Sector Mapping Agreement, before they could release *their own* data to the public. In these cases the Ordnance Survey OpenData Licence is inappropriate (Ordnance Survey have done little or nothing in terms of creating the data the exemption applies to), and is overly restrictive. The standard, and widely accepted, Open Government Licence is the preferred alternative. This will then leave the Ordnance Survey OpenData Licence to it's original intention - that is a licence applied to only the Ordnance Survey created product suite that is branded and distributed under the name "OS OpenData". === Request 2 === Furthermore, can you please ensure that where Ordnance Survey have ruled over an exemption application granting permission to one Local Authority to make data available under the OS OpenData Licence, they make this ruling publicly available online and applicable to similar datasets for all Local Authorities. For example, Ordnance Survey have granted exemption to a handful of Local Authorities to release Public Rights of Way data. For each one of these, a member of the GIS/geospatial community has written to the Local Authority explaining licences and exactly how to apply under the exemption process. This is rarely an easy task and with 152 Local Authorities in England, the remaining workload is huge! Note that this is especially important for Public Rights of Way given that Local Authorities are required to use Ordnance Survey products to create their data, and are also required to provide Ordnance Survey with the finished data (see download on [8]), thus reinforcing a monopoly and introducing barriers to fair competition. === Request 3 === Please work with OPSI to ensure that they continue to work with Ordnance Survey, as per their communication dated 23 Jan 2013, to amend and update the OS OpenData Licence to remove confusion. Ideally with the aim of removing the preceding text and returning to the original Open Government Licence for all data (be it the "OS OpenData" branded suite, or the data of other public sector organisations). [1] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20120919132719/http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/corporate/ordnancesurveyconresponse [2] http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf [3] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/ [4] http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/docs/user-guides/psma-licence-user-guide-v1-1.pdf [5] http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/docs/licences/psma-member-licence.pdf [6] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ [7] http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/documents/information-management/ordnance-survey-ifts-report.pdf [8] http://www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/06/15/pb13553-row-circular-109/ [note 1] OpenStreetMap is an online community of volunteers that collect geospatial information by surveying their local neighbourhoods and working with data owners to facilitate the release if such information. The data is added to a geosaptial database and is released under the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODC-ODbL). With over 1.05 million registered users it is one of the largest open data communities. In addition to community members, OpenStreetMap is also creating jobs and business opportunities. This is primarily due to the fact that the ODC-ODbL licence allows for use of the OpenStreetMap database at zero cost to the end user. The range of companies that make use of the data is complete. That is, it includes large publicly traded companies such as Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) and Garmin (NASDAQ: GRMN), private companies such as Foursquare Labs Inc and MapBox LLC, and self employed individuals providing consultancy and support services. [note 2] Role of Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) is defined as “OPSI operates within The National Archives. The Director of OPSI is also the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) and Queen's Printer (the Controller). The Controller has responsibility for the management of all copyrights and database rights owned by the Crown.” http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmcomloc/memo3/uc0202.htm [note 3] The “Open Data Commons Attribution Licence” (ODC-By) is a more liberal version of the “Open Data Commons Open Database License” (ODC-ODbL) in that it does not require a “share alike” principal. Any licence that is compatible with ODC-By is therefore also compatible with ODC-ODbL. This is similar to the relationship between Creative Commons' CC-By and CC-By-SA licences.
Reason: 
The data is available but the licensing terms are too restrictive
== Actions taken to date == Due to confusion as to what additional burdens, the OS OpenData Licence places on the User the free re-use of these data sets has been stifled. In October 2012, I therefore wrote to Ordnance Survey's regulator, the Office for Public Sector Information (OPSI), seeking clarification. The clarification I sought, was specifically in regards to the compatibility of the Ordnance Survey OpenData Licence and the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODC-ODbL) [6]. Given OPSI's role [note 2], I believed they were well position to provide an answer. Initially the answer came back that “the additional terms added by Ordnance Survey do not override this clause”. Here, “clause” is referring to the the statement in the standard Open Government Licence text that reads “fully interoperable with the Open Data Commons Attribution Licence” [note 3]. I have no legal knowledge/experience, however, I felt this answer may have missed something. I therefore asked a GIS/geospatial community member who was slightly more informed to pursue the issue with OPSI. Which he did. On 23 January 2013, OPSI sent the following reply: “We have followed up on your original enquiry and have now had our meeting with the team at Ordnance Survey. OS acknowledge that there could indeed be confusion in the interpretation of information in the OS OpenData Licence, and to this end OS are currently working with their legal team to amend and update the licence. Although we have requested that TNA [The National Archives] be advised of a timescale for a response regarding any changes to be made to the licence, none have so far been forthcoming, but we will endeavour to keep you up to date with developments as we receive them.” We continued to periodically prompt OPSI for any updates regarding a timeline for this amendment. On 11 Mar 2013, OPSI sent us the following: “We have had a response from our colleagues at Ordnance Survey, following their consultation with OS legal representatives. Ordnance Survey has confirmed that the OS OpenData Licence obligations on copyright acknowledgement continue - notwithstanding the licensee's entry into the ODC-By or the ODbL. Therefore, the OS Open Data copyright acknowledgments apply in addition to any acknowledgments required by the ODC-By or the ODbL (e.g. under clauses 4.2 and 4.3 of the ODC-By). It the opinion of Ordnance Survey that this requirement for an acknowledgement means that the OS OpenData licence is not forward compatible with the ODC-By and ODbL.” This information came out of the blue as we were expecting Ordnance Survey's legal team to be amending and updating the OS OpenData Licence. Instead they have closed the door on us. We also have to ask what is the effective role of the regulator if OPSI simply redistributes statements from Ordnance Survey's legal department which have the effect of negating the stated purpose of the OS OpenData licence: namely to allow re-use. [6] http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/ [note 2] Role of Office of Public Sector Information (OPSI) is defined as “OPSI operates within The National Archives. The Director of OPSI is also the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office (HMSO) and Queen's Printer (the Controller). The Controller has responsibility for the management of all copyrights and database rights owned by the Crown.” http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200607/cmselect/cmcomloc/memo3/uc0202.htm [note 3] The “Open Data Commons Attribution Licence” (ODC-By) is a more liberal version of the “Open Data Commons Open Database License” (ODC-ODbL) in that it does not require a “share alike” principal. Any licence that is compatible with ODC-By is therefore also compatible with ODC-ODbL. This is similar to the relationship between Creative Commons' CC-By and CC-By-SA licences.
Suggested use: 
Business Use
Personal Use
Community Work
Research
Other
As noted above, based on Statement 1, set out in The National Archives report entitled "Information Fair Trader Scheme Report, Ordnance Survey, February–March 2011" [7] IFTS ensures that re-users of public sector information can be confident that they will be treated reasonably and fairly by public sector information providers. This has not been the case with the Ordnance Survey OpenData Licence. The same report shows a stark contrast between how open OPSI view the OS OpenData Licence (as in "simple terms", "free re-use without restriction") and the reality (restrictive, confusing and overly complex). If these datasets are made available under a truly free re-use licence then I will work with the GIS/geospatial industry to ensure that they are used as widely as possible in order to maximise their benefit to the wider economy.
Benefits overview: 
If made available under a truly free re-use licence the datasets would benefit the entire GIS/geospatial industry. From a personal point of view, I am a contributor to the OpenStreetMap project. As noted above, OpenStreetMap is an online community of volunteers that collect geospatial information by surveying their local neighbourhoods and working with data owners to facilitate the release if such information. The data is added to a geosaptial database and is released under the Open Data Commons Open Database License (ODC-ODbL). With over 1.05 million registered users it is one of the largest open data communities. In addition to community members, OpenStreetMap is also creating jobs and business opportunities. This is primarily due to the fact that the ODC-ODbL licence allows for use of the OpenStreetMap database at zero cost to the end user. The range of companies that make use of the data is complete. That is, it includes large publicly traded companies such as Apple (NASDAQ: AAPL) and Garmin (NASDAQ: GRMN), private companies such as Foursquare Labs Inc and MapBox LLC, and self employed individuals providing consultancy and support services.

Comments

Supporting document

Unfortunately the web forms have decided to remove all line breaks from my submitted text. As this has made it hard to read, I have uploaded the two longest sections (Description and Barriers) to Google Drive:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B6J5ZA1hu93bTG9GUG13WmVsYmc/edit?usp=sharing

 Flag as offensive 

OS OpenData Licence

Rob,

You were kind enough to copy me in on some of the OPSI correspondence behind this, thank you.

I would like to express my support for the central points above, and I do hope that the ODUG will take them up. You've made some other points that I find difficult to reconcile with my own experiences and on which I think it would be useful to have further clarification.

I certainly agree that in principle it would be desirable to eliminate the OS OpenData Licence entirely and encourage use of the Open Government Licence in its place (both for OS OpenData products and datasets that include OS derived data). All the OS OpenData Licence really adds is the specific attribution statements (for OS, ONS and Royal Mail). The OGL already covers attribution generically by requiring that licensees "acknowledge the source of the Information by including any attribution statement specified by the Information Provider(s)".

That said, I'm not clear then why you are objecting to the OS OpenData Licence but not the OGL. Surely if incompatibility with ODC-ODbL and ODC-By is the main problem for OSM, you would still have that problem with the OGL conditions? If so, eliminating the OS OpenData Licence will not help you. (Have I missed or misunderstood something?)

I disagree that the OS OpenData Licence is "restrictive, confusing and overly complex". How can it be confusing or complex when it adds so little to the OGL, which is pretty much plain English? Restrictive is a matter of opinion of course and depends what you want to do with the data, but overall the OS licence is surely less restrictive than the ODC-ODbL licence used by OpenStreetMap. 

Is there really "significant concern within the GIS / Geospatial industry as to the exact connotations of the additional leading text" in the OS OpenData Licence? I'm skeptical that anyone with experience of data licensing in the industry would have difficulty understanding the OS OpenData Licence. There will of course be individual developers and re-users for whom the OGL and the OS OpenData Licence are their first experience of data licensing -- because they are getting the data directly rather than through a procurement process. However that's more a problem of general education.

I agree that Ordnance Survey could do more to streamline the PSMA exemption process, and that it should be possible to agree (and communicate to local government) a blanket exemption for some categories of re-use, such as Public Rights of Way data. It is ridiculous that open data activists have to build national datasets piecemeal by cajoling individual local authorities to seek exemptions for the data in their areas. (Barry Cornelius is making great progress on PRoW though!)

I would go further and say we should be trying to persuade Ordnance Survey to revisit their definition of derived data, and apply it only to data re-use that involves significant copying of whole map features. Something like the AQMA boundary line in this example only seems to have involved drawing around the edges of OS features, and cannot really be said to erode the commercial value of the underlying OS map product.

However in the context of the existing exemption process and definition of derived data it does not seem unreasonable for local authorities to apply the OS OpenData Licence to data releases that include OS derived data. Why is that approach more restrictive than requiring the same or similar attribution under the OGL?

I don't personally consider attribution itself to be an unreasonable term in an open data licence. I recognise that in some online contexts there are practical difficulties in displaying long attribution statements, and that this may create particular problems for the OSM re-use model. However I'm less convinced such technical issues should be addressed by eliminating the attribution requirement from the licence. Attribution is often very useful to end users who want to track back and explore the source data. More importantly there is a "moral rights" argument; it is already quite difficult to persuade some public authorities to release open data, and it will become more so if they do not at least get due credit for downstream re-use of the data.

-- Owen Boswarva, 07/04/2013

 Flag as offensive 

Why there is a problem

To try to answer some of your questions:

* The OGL already includes some attribution requirements, and no-one is saying that some level of attribution is unreasonable.

* The OGL includes an explicit statement that it is forward compatible with both the CC-By and ODC-By licences, giving users the confidence to know that they can take OGL-licensed data and mix it with datasets that are under either CC-By or ODC-By and then release the resulting derived data-set under that licence.

* Although the OS OpenData Licence does add very little to the OGL, the additional attribution requirement is problematic. It is stricter than the attribution requirement already contained in the OGL, and -- crucially -- the attribution requirements of ODC-By. Taking the additional clause at face value, the OS OpenData Licence is then no longer forward compatible with ODC-By (and hence not compatible with ODbL either). But what effect does the forward compatibility statement in the OGL now have? This is where the uncertainty arises.

* Ordnance Survey and OPSI had previously given indications that they thought the OS OpenData Licence was still forward compatible with ODC-By. But the latest statement from Ordnance Survey (11 Mar 2013, see the request above) shows that OS now believes their licence is not forward compatible with ODC-By or ODbL. This means that OS OpenData Licensed material cannot be combined with ODbL-licensed data.

* Since ODC-By and ODbL are the most widely used attribution and share-alike licenses for databases, a lack of forward compatibility there will significantly restrict the opportunities for re-use -- both of OS's own OpenData, and the data released by local authorities under the PSMA -- when the OS data is to be combined with other existing open datasets.

Robert.

 Flag as offensive 

Sorry, still not getting it ...

Robert, thanks for your comments. I'd really like to pin this down though. How is the attribution requirement in the OS OpenData Licence "stricter" than that in the OGL?

It is certainly more specific, but as I understand it any information provider releasing data under the OGL could prescribe a similar statement. (Though they may choose not to, of course.)

As the OS OpenData Licence incorporates the OGL in its entirety surely any forward compatibility (or lack thereof) is potentially the same under both?

While the OGL does say explicitly that "terms have been aligned to be interoperable" with the CC-By and ODC-By licences, the attribution clause in the OGL does not seem to prevent the information provider from breaking forward compatibility in the same way that OS seem to have done with their licence. If so, replacing the OS OpenData Licence with the OGL would not help by itself.

In short is the issue for OSM actually traceable to an effective difference in the licences themselves, or just a grievance over misunderstood or poorly communicated advice from the OS?

-- Owen Boswarva, 08/04/2013

 Flag as offensive 

Me neither...

In all honesty Owen, I'm hugely confused by all of this too. I have added a comment detailing all that I know about the three licences above. You may find the summary section most interesting. To me (an average Joe Blogs with no legal knowledge), it appears that the OS OpenData Licence is "stricter".

Bottom line is that OS are aware of the concerns and, despite repeatedly being asked, do not seem willing to give a basic answer to the question:

  • Can we include any OS OpenData Licence licenced data within the OpenStreetMap database - a database that is licenced under ODC-ODbL? The Ordnance Survey attribution text will be included in OpenStreetMaps copyright page, however OpenStreetMap cannot realisticaly ask all our end users to include this same attributioon in any deriviative work. An attribution chain (through attribution to OpenStreetMap, which in turn attributes Ordnance Survey) will however always exist.

Obviously this is not unique to OpenStreetMap, so feel free to replace "OpenStreetMao" with any other company name in the question above.

 Flag as offensive 

Okay, I'm understanding the problem better I think ...

The question of interoperability might be a red herring. You want to sub-license OS OpenData Licence licensed data into the OSM database, and you want to know what the attribution requirement will be for users creating derivative works from the OSM database.

That attribution requirement proceeds from the OS OpenData Licence, so it doesn't really matter what exact licence you are using for the OSM database. (Interoperability means licences should be compatible, not that one will necessarily replace the other.)

The additional term in the OS OpenData Licence ("The same attribution statements must be contained in any sub-licences of the Information that you grant, together with a requirement that any further sub-licences do the same.") plainly does intend the attribution to be included in derived works that use the OS OpenData Licence licensed data. Or at least I cannot see any other interpretation.

The larger question is whether you would be any better off if Ordnance Survey were just to use the OGL. The OGL seems to be silent on the question of sub-licensing; it does not specifically say that attribution must be carried forward to derivative works, but neither does it preclude sub-licensing in the way that the ODC-ODbL does.

-- Owen Boswarva, 08/04/2013

 Flag as offensive 

OGL and forward compatibility

The OGL explicitly says it's forward compatible with the ODbL*, so as long as you include the requested attribution and follow the requirements of the ODbL as concerns the licensing of derivative works, then you're going to be ok. Thus any downstream users of an ODbL database (even one that contains OGL-licensed data) will just have to comply with the ODbL licence terms. This makes it easy for both database distributors and their users, since neither have to worry about enforcing or complying with multiple different licenses.

With the OS OpenData License, downstream users would have to additionally comply with the the separate OS-specific attribution requirements. Hence the ODbL database owner, wouldn't be able to offer the database to users to re-use under *just* the terms of the ODbL, they'd need to specify the other requirements too. (In fact since the owner can't distribute the data under the just the ODbL, then the ODbL would probably stop them being able to add the OS OpenData Licensed data to it in the first place.)

(* Actually the statement concerns compatibility with the related ODC-By licence, but anything that is forward compatible with that will also be forward compatible with the ODbL.)

 Flag as offensive 

OGL and forward compatibility

Okay. I don't necessarily disagree with your overall conclusion. However I'm not confident the OGL is quite that explicit about forward compatibility.

What the OGL actually says is:

"These terms have been aligned to be interoperable with any Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which covers copyright, and Open Data Commons Attribution License, which covers database rights and applicable copyrights."

That's rather oddly phrased. Why say "have been aligned to be interoperable" rather than simply "are interoperable"? It's almost as if the intent is to provide some legal wiggle room ...

-- Owen Boswarva, 29/04/2013

 Flag as offensive 

Support for these Requests

I would like to add my support to the requests above.

In particular, I am interested in being able to create a freely available map of Public Rights of Way so that the public can see exactly where they can and cannot walk, ride, and cycle in the countryside. The basic map data comes from OpenStreetMap (the only suitably detailed open mapping data available) which is licensed under the ODbL.

The definitive data for the Rights of Way is maintained at public expense by Local Authorities. But the routes are typically drawn on top of OS base maps, giving Ordnance Survey rights in the data. Local Authorities are able to apply to OS to release this data, but it then comes under the OS OpenData Licence. A lack of forward compatibility with the ODbL means that this data cannot be combined with the OpenStreetMap data, so we are unable to add the definitive Public Rights of Way data to the map.

(Instead we are left having to map the routes from signs on the ground -- which are often missing or unreliable, and from textural descriptions -- which are often unclear or not easy to follow without seeing the route on a map.)

Robert.

PS: I made a previous request to the ODUG along similar lines, which can be viewed at http://data.gov.uk/data-requests/os-opendata-license

 Flag as offensive 

Details on the three licences

On the three licences discussed in the above text:

1. Open Data Commons – Open Database Licence (ODC-ODbL)

Released 29 June 2009, the ODC-ODbL described as the first of its kind, is a open licence introduced to bring the share-alike model of well know licences (such as the GPL, GFDL and CC By-SA) to data and databases. Previous share-alike licenses were all unsuitable for data.

http://opendatacommons.org/2009/06/29/open-database-license-odbl-v10-released/

2. Open Government Licence

Released the following year (30 September 2010) the OGL was developed by the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office (HMSO) / The National Archives. It replaced the previous Click-Use Licence with a more open licence under which people can use government information and data. When Tim Berners-Lee and Nigel Shadbolt first became involved in the effort to open up government data, they identified permissive and open licenses as a key requirement. The Open Government Licence is intended to be interoperable, with widely-used models such as Creative Commons and Open Data Commons. To this extent the licence includes the following text:

“These terms have been aligned to be interoperable with any Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which covers copyright, and Open Data Commons Attribution License, which covers database rights and applicable copyrights.”

http://data.gov.uk/blog/new-open-government-license

http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/information-management/government-licensing/about-the-ogl.htm

3. Ordnance Survey's OS OpenData Licence

The OS OpenData Licence was first introduced to coincide with the release of the OS OpenData branded product suite. Although this pre-dated the OGL the OS OpenData Licence has always been split into a main “Public Sector” / “Crown Copyright” section and a leading “Ordnance Survey” section. After the introduction of the OGL, the original OS OpenData Licence [A] was updated [B] to replace the Public Sector/Crown Copyright section with the standard OGL text. At the same time the leading OS text was updated. This update included moving a paragraph of text that had originally been within the Public Sector/Crown Copyright section (but was dropped by the OGL), to the leading Ordnance Survey text. This paragraph states that:

“The same [Ordnance Survey] attribution statements must be contained in any sub-licences of the Information that you grant, together with a requirement that any further sub-licences do the same.”

It the opinion of Ordnance Survey that this requirement for an acknowledgement means that the OS OpenData licence "is not forward compatible with the ODC-By and ODbL".

[A] http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20100402134053/http://ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf

[B] http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/docs/licences/os-opendata-licence.pdf

Summary

The OGL includes a statement that it is interoperable with ODC-ODbL. The Ordnance Survey's legal team have stated that the OS OpenData Licence is not forward compatible with the ODC-ODbL. It is also clear that Ordance Survey see something in the text they have decided to add to the leading section of the OS OpenData Licence on integration of the standard OGL text. That is, it is the view of the OS that the following text has some stricter requirements that the wording of the OGL:

“The same [Ordnance Survey] attribution statements must be contained in any sub-licences of the Information that you grant, together with a requirement that any further sub-licences do the same”

Having no legal knowledge I am unsure as to what the difference is between interoperable and forward compatible (if any) and am fustrated that Ordnance Survey choice not to provide a simple answer to the OpenStreetMap community despite being aware of the concerns.

The question we ask of Ordnance Survey is very simple:

  • Can we include any OS OpenData Licence licenced data within the OpenStreetMap database - a database that is licenced under ODC-ODbL? The Ordnance Survey attribution text will be included in OpenStreetMaps copyright page, however OpenStreetMap cannot realisticaly ask all our end users to include this same attributioon in any deriviative work. An attribution chain (through attribution to OpenStreetMap, which in turn attributes Ordnance Survey) will however always exist.
 Flag as offensive 

OS OpenData Licence replaced by Open Government Licence

Ordnance Survey have today announced that they will adopt the OGL for all OS OpenData products. So this request is basically sorted (at last).

 Flag as offensive 

Close?

As the last commenter pointed out, almost 18 months ago, OS switched to the OGL, as requested. May I propose that this moves on from the "ODUG preparing a business case" status.

And by the way, in the comments it was forgotten that OS Open Data preceded the OGL. I accept that OS was slow to switch over.

 Flag as offensive