Comments on: Why OpenSpaces and GeoVation Vexes Me So

By: GreyCells

GreyCells — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 13:43:10 +0000

The derived data clause means anyone (business, non-profit or public sector) who has read and understood the terms and conditions of ‘Open’ Space will not use it. Talk about an exercise in futility.

It’s a bit like the Oxford University Press claiming copyright on all the world’s English literature because they documented the definition of each of the words –

According to OS’s theory, every work that uses those words are a ‘derived works’.

OS have simply documented the definition of our land.

By: Peter Miller

Peter Miller — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:52:28 +0000

Under the current trading fund model it seems reasonable that the OS should continue to protect its data from plagiarism, ie people deriving a new street map from their street maps etc. The OS must however be generous in allowing people to geo-code there own features from OS maps without claiming derived data-rights on that data. I say generous because there is a grey area here but if they are not generous then they will become irrelevant for many purposes. They must allow a local authority to locate all their cycle racks using OS data and use it free of OS copyright. They must allow the Woodland Trust to create outlines of the woods they manage using OS data and use it free of OS restrictions. Possibly they should allow Sustrans to derive all the nation cycle routes from OS data and use it free of OS restrictions – ok so that might be getting tricky but I think they should.

I say ‘must’ in some of the above cases because if they don’t allow this soon, then authorities and businesses will start supporting OpenStreetMap with a vengeance to become good enough to make the OS redundant for many purposes and that is not in their interest. Look at the story of the Microsoft monopoly and the rise of Linux to see what happens.

They do in fact allow some people to derive data – they are sponsors of Geograph (http://www.geograph.org.uk/) and OS maps have been used to geocode over 1 million photos and the resulting work are published ccbysa with their blessing: http://blog.dixo.net/2006/10/23/geograph-creative-commons-and-ordnance-survey-revisited/ … however it seems they have not actually given up their rights, they only seem to be allowing geograph to do it but still reserve the right to sue anyone who creates a map from the geograph data. This is strange because the ccbysa license is very clear about the rights given and don’t mention a list of things you can’t do and for which you will be sued.

By: Ed Parsons

Ed Parsons — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 19:35:52 +0000

There is a relatively simple way to define derived information, and that is to ask what is not… If i create a new feature that is not represented as a feature on the original map/dataset it cannot be derived from it. If the OS would just agree with this it world more things forward.. but then we have been asking for this for years…

As some point you have to move beyond cock-up territory to conspiracy…

By: James Cutler

James Cutler — Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:12:22 +0000

The war of words continues – at the risk of being vilified as an ostrich, a couple of comments (some of which I have shared with Chris in the past in person). I would concur with Chris’ underlying message: that suggestions that something concrete on derived data can emerge simply due to GeoVation suddenly being on the scene is to attribute too much to this “action”.
However, there is no denying the very real challenge of defining what is meant by derived data and this is the chief casualty of the current polarised debate.
Plenty of effort has gone into voicing the issue but less into moving the issue towards a solution where the social/cultural opportunities and value inherent in the kind of derived data you describe can be realised. It is a crying shame (even as critical friend) that OS haven’t been able to accelerate this strand of their work as it would get the monkey off their back and rightly open up these uses.
However, as ever, the devil is in the detail and as alluded to in this case it is the start and end point of what ‘derived data’ is. As noted the funding model is for the moment at least a given; so it is that OS is duty bound to ‘protect’ its assets. On this basis one can understand the reluctance of an organisation to allow a definition of derived data that would include every building in OS MasterMap (OS’ most detailed geospatial content) while at the same time ridiculing it for denying the kinds of examples trailed by Chris. And there are a huge raft of derived data scenarios between these two…..it is an interesting challenge once you get up close!
This duality (and the shades in between) makes it impossible to assert that “the practice of claiming copyright for derived data must end”. Even the Free Our Data campaign tacitly recognises this but tricky subjects do not snappy headlines make!
You have usefully shed some light onto what for many is the key and sometimes forgotten issue – derived data does demand greater attention. However, a solution that meets these challenges demands more constructive noises off.