Government widens click-use licence.. but wants more money from its users
The Office of Public Sector Information has widened the organisations that will be able to license “core data” through the click-use licence, according to the What’s New page:
From 1 April 2006 the Click-Use Licence is being extended to cover information produced by public sector organisations such as local authorities, the NHS, police and fire services.
However, while that’s welcome – because click-use should mean that you can use data licensed that way as you want, without worries about whether it’s for commercial re-use, private enjoyment or (even) undercutting an existing commercial service – there is a fly in the ointment. Two, actually.
First, it will be voluntary for these organisations to provide data in this way. They don’t have to do it.
Secondly – and this is perhaps the killer – local authorities (which have the potential to provide so much mapping and postcode data which could be patched together, because in many cases they originate it) are now under pressure to bring down council tax by whatever means they can; which includes selling information. Obviously, if you’re a councillor considering the best route to keep the council tax bill down, one thing you’ll probably cross off your list quite early is making data available for free. Anyone who knows an argument to the contrary, please give it..
- The following posts may be related...(the database guesses):
- OS changes OpenSpace licensing terms in developers' favour: commercial use now allowed (28 November 2008; score: 22.81%)
- Why isn't the BBC on this list? Because.. (19 March 2006; score: 22.47%)
- The money-go-round: how often does the government charge itself for its own data? (24 March 2006; score: 21.98%)
- Postcode charges threatens split between councils and Post Office (16 November 2006; score: 19.98%)
- How does Ordnance Survey justify its licensing costs when its accounts are disputed? (22 June 2006; score: 18.98%)
March 31st, 2006 at 7:33 pm
Corrections to “local authorities (which have the potential to provide so much mapping and postcode data which could be patched together, because in many cases they originate it)”
Local authorities do not produce mapping. They license maps from OS, I thought that was what the fuss was about. So how are they going to make mapping available for free or otherwise? Similarly they do not create postcodes, Royal Mail does that – the LA is responsible for street numbering and naming.
LAs are making more and more of their data (e.g. planning information) freely available to their citizens through their web sites.
If this is to be a serious debate you need to check the detail before posting.
April 2nd, 2006 at 5:28 pm
yes, but some are willing to pay for what is available -a well known OS partner once stated they’d pay good money for planning data as long as it was provided in a consistant format. At the time they said this ( a few years back) they were re-capturing local plans in India.
And the NLPG is being marketted as direct competition to OS address layer with money coming back to LAs
April 4th, 2006 at 4:02 pm
It is not true to say that the NLPG is being marketed as direct competition to the OS Address Layer (Esrim) with money being returned to local authorities. The NLPG was conceived in the 1980s and started its full development in 1999 and thus pre-dates OS Address Layer by several years. It is materially different in its approach although some OS managers believe it will be a direct competitor to their new Address Layer 2.
It is, however, true that local government always envisaged that the NLPG should be licensed outside its immediate community and that it should become “widely available at affordable cost and on straightforward licensing terms�. This was for two reasons.
First, because the NLPG (ie a master file of reference – primarily addresses – describing land and property) is considered a key to joining-up the delivery of local, regional and national government services (many of which relate to addresses), essentially recognising many of the themes reproduced very recently in the Cabinet Office’s “Transformational Governmentâ€? plans. To reach its maximum potential for efficiency gains and service improvement, the NLPG needs to be used (“sharedâ€?) as widely as possible.
Secondly, the NLPG was to be licensed in order to create a funding stream to help support the investment of local government and others (including ourselves) in its initial creation as well as its ongoing maintenance and improvement. This plan followed the thrust of HM Treasury’s policy “Selling Data into Wider Markets� (July 1998).
The NLPG is already widely, successfully and increasingly used within the local government community. It already produces many of the benefits originally envisaged. However, it is not being widely used outside the local government community because it contains data from third parties and one of those third parties require licensing terms for their data which, in our view, prevent the NLPG from becoming “widely available at affordable cost and on straightforward licensing terms�.
As yet there is therefore no licensing revenue to return to local authorities. Even if the NLPG was directly comparable to the OS Address Layer, we consider the current position of licensing negotiations would prevent it from being widely marketed.
April 6th, 2006 at 8:49 am
Of course the NLPG is in direct competition to OS Address Layer 2 – as a non Government organisation interested in mapping for example, you would not require both datasets, just one or the other, assuming it could be ‘licensed’ in that fashion, or as is being suggested, made freely available. It’s hardly a coincidence that Ordnance Survey are adding detail to Address Layer 2 that is driven by BS7666 and then making claims that its compliant.
The NLPG is certainly not ‘widely’, ’successfully’ and ‘increasingly’ used by anyone at all.
The ‘National’ gazetteer has only been used as a ‘redundant’ hub, a sink for assimilating local gazetteers.
Local gazetteers however are being successfully integrated into Council services, and there is some credit to be given to the national strategy that has facilitated this, but the NLPG as an entity in its own right remains locked in a box, unless anyone can provide an example of course…