Data Exploration Licence

major Rubric 1 cc:legalcode applied

cc:legalcode and dct:source both pointed at https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/business-and-government/licensing/licences/data-exploration.html, which returns 404, so the record had no working link to the licence at all. cc:legalcode now points at the terms PDF, https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/documents/licences/data-exploration-licence.pdf, and dct:source at the product page, https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/licensing/data-exploration-licence. Both resolve.

info Rubric 1 spdx:licenseId none

SPDX has no entry for this licence and none was invented.

info Rubric 2 odrl:target none

dcmitype:Dataset only, which is right: the subject is OS Exploration Data.

major Rubric 3 odrl:permission applied

Every permission and every prohibition was stated twice, ten permission nodes for five statements and twenty prohibition nodes for ten. The duplicates were removed, which the corrections policy treats as clear cut and which rule 11 of the family-rule baseline lists as the largest case in the library after the Norwegian NoDerivatives 3.0 port. The model is unchanged otherwise.

major Rubric 3 odrl:permission proposed

odrl:display is prohibited while the licence permits it: under Limited External Demonstration, "You can display the OS Exploration Data or create prototypes on your own equipment, to promote how your ideas or propositions for using our data would work to others, such as potential customers, investors, or other financial backers." The sibling record DeveloperLicense, drafted from the same template, permits display. Proposed rather than applied, because the prohibition may be faithful to the 2018 edition the record models.

minor Rubric 3 odrl:permission proposed

cc:ShareAlike is modelled as a permission carrying a cc:Notice duty. The licence has no share-alike clause of any kind. What it has is an acknowledgement duty, which is where the cc:Notice duty under this node comes from. Proposed: drop the share-alike permission and keep the notice as a licence-wide duty next to the attribution duty added below. Rule 5b of the family-rule baseline raises the same modelling question for three permissive software licences.

info Rubric 4 odrl:prohibition none

The prohibitions follow the section "What are you not allowed to do with the data?": unauthorised sharing, use beyond evaluation purposes, supplying a product or service that has made use of the data, retaining the output of a live trial, and, in the current edition, use for machine learning or artificial intelligence purposes. cc:CommercialUse, the two fee prohibitions, odrl:distribute, odrl:grantUse, cc:DerivativeWorks and dalicc:addStatement all rest on those sentences.

major Rubric 5 odrl:duty applied

The record had no attribution duty at all, although the licence makes the acknowledgement mandatory: "You need to display the OS acknowledgement statement. To acknowledge that the OS Exploration Data is from OS and is protected by law, you must clearly display the following statement alongside your use of the data: Crown copyright and database rights Ordnance Survey Limited (insert year)." A licence-wide cc:Attribution duty was added, licence-wide because the duty is owed for any use and not only when the data is passed on.

info Rubric 6 dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer none

dalicc:WarrantyDisclaimer is the No Warranty clause of the edition the record models, quoted verbatim. The current edition rewrote that clause, along with the rest of the document, in plain language. Liabilities, termination, the destruction duty and the security and record keeping duties are not carried.

major Rubric 7 dalicc:validityType applied

The record was the only one in the library without a dalicc:validityType, and it carries scho:startDate 2018-01-01 and scho:endDate 2018-12-31. dalicc:specifyDate is the vocabulary term the composer pairs with those two properties, so it was added. The licence itself is time limited: "You can use the OS Data for 6 months from the date you first access the OS Data", three months for third party data.

minor Rubric 7 scho:startDate proposed

The two dates are plain literals rather than xsd:date, while the composer writes them with the datatype. Proposed rather than applied, because retyping a published literal changes the RDF for any client that compares literals.

gap Rubric 8 record none

The same gaps as the sibling Developer Licence: registration before access, destruction of the data and of prototypes on termination, security and record keeping duties, the audit right and the feedback duty. The current edition adds one more that no open licence had before: "Use of OS Exploration Data in any way for or in connection with any machine learning and / or artificial intelligence purposes (including without limitation, any use of the OS Exploration Data as reference training material) is prohibited." Proposed term: dalicc:useForModelTraining, to be used as a prohibition. It is worth a vocabulary entry of its own, because such clauses are spreading through data licences.

minor Rubric 9 record proposed

The consistency check reports one conflict, the same one the baseline listed and the same one the Developer Licence has: odrl:derive permitted against cc:DerivativeWorks prohibited. Confirmed against the text: the licence lets the licensee build prototypes from the data and forbids supplying anything that has made use of it. The resolution is the same choice as for the Developer Licence and is left open for the association's decision.

major Rubric 10 record proposed

The record models the 2018 edition. The published document is now v9.5 of 1 December 2025: the licence period is six months rather than twelve, the machine-learning prohibition is new, and the whole text was rewritten in plain language. The record should either be refreshed against v9.5 or be labelled as the 2018 edition, which the scho:startDate and scho:endDate already suggest. A decision for the association, because refreshing it rewrites a published record rather than correcting it.