Difference with OpenStreetMap ?

[Ecologeek]

Hi,

I don't understand very well what are the differences between your new (futur) OpenAdresseUK dataset and an extract of the adresses in UK from the OpenStreetMap database?

[peterkwells]

Hi there,

the OpenStreetMap database is published under a share-alike licence (http://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright). This licence discourage some potential users of Open Addresses, in particular commercial users of the data.

An authoritative and definitive source of address data for the UK needs to be usable by anyone for any purpose. Hence we are publishing under CC-BY-4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/, attribution only).

Best, Peter

[lxbarth]

Relevant discussion to "fix" geocoding for OpenStreetMap under the ODbL https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2014-July/007900.html

[peterkwells]

Thanks Alex.

For those interested in the wider Open Addresses take on copyright and addresses this blogpost is relevant: https://alpha.openaddressesuk.org/blog/2015/01/26/making-address-data-safe. It's a very tangled picture.

It would be great if OSM could "fix" it, although in the meantime OSM (or anyone else) can feel free to absorb the data that OA UK publishes as long as they retain the attribution. This isn't for ourselves as much as a need for the other licensees, e.g. Crown copyright, OS etcetera. See: https://alpha.openaddressesuk.org/data

[simonpoole]

@Ecologeek OSM data is naturally, by virtue of its licence just as usable by anyone for any purpose. There are simply some obligations to give back (in a wide sense of the word) in some use cases.

[simonpoole]

@peterkwells my reading of CC by 4.0 Section 3 a (4) together with Section 4 b would indicate an obligation by anybody including openaddressesuk data in their DB not very much different than what the ODbL requires.

[peterkwells]

@simonpoole apologies for the slow reply.

I understand that the intent of those two sections is to preserve the Attribution condition where the (EU-specific) suis generis database rights get activated in adapted (i.e. derived) data, i.e. the attribution is preserved down the chain.

That is different from ODbL which says that derivative database must use ODbL, or another permitted licence, i.e. the whole licence propogates down the chain.

Do you have advice which contradicts that? If so I'd be happy to run it by our team.

[simonpoole]

The subtle point is, IMHO, that simple inclusion (only for Sui Generis databases) already creates "Adapted Material" and that the licence then applies to the whole (contrary to the ODbL were the whole would be a collective database with individually licenced contents). This is likely not really problematic for attribution, given that survial of that is the whole point, however the wording would further indicate that you cannot restrict a downstream recipient of adapted material from exercising the rights granted in 2.a. IANAL natually,