First, the important part: Having contributed data derived from OS OpenData, I intend on agreeing to CT and relicensing my previous contributions before the end of September.
If anyone is in any doubt over the situation with OS and CT, create a new account and avoid deriving from OS data in the meantime. This will allow you to continue contributing to OSM until the matter is settled. Anyone that tells you otherwise is an idiot, and you can quote me on that. In fact, here's a pre-formatted pull-quote you can use:
"Anyone that tells you that you can't create a new account to agree to CT is an idiot." - chriscf
Here comes the complicated bit that you have to read from start to finish. If you're not interested, you can probably stop here. Otherwise, you will need to read all the way to the end.
There are open questions as to whether third-party sources are good for the new Contributor Terms. We've already had NearMap come forward and say they're not happy with them. This means we will likely lose that data. This is probably the fault of whatever idiot thought it was remotely a good idea to add third-party CC-BY-SA data while the licence change discussion was well under way (this has been in train since around 2007 or so, if not earlier).
Let us turn to clause 2: "You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other." According to section 16 Copyrights, Designs and Patents Act, the "acts restricted by copyright" are:
(a) to copy the work (see section 17);
(b) to issue copies of the work to the public (see section 18);
(ba) to rent or lend the work to the public (see section 18A);
(c) to perform, show or play the work in public (see section 19);
(d) to communicate the work to the public (see section 20);
(e) to make an adaptation of the work or do any of the above in relation to an adaptation (see section 21);
The OS OpenData licence specifically makes the following statement:
This is a worldwide, royalty-free, perpetual, non-exclusive licence from the provider of the Data (the “Data Provider”) to use it subject to the conditions below.
This only leaves the word "irrevocable", which is dealt with by this paragraph at the end:
The Data Provider may amend the terms of this licence or make the Data available under a different licence. However, these terms will continue to apply to data you already license from the Data Provider.
Then there's the lovely bit about "any act that is restricted by copyright". We can interpret this in terms of section 16. The OS OpenData licence comes with the following grants:
You are free to:
* copy, distribute and transmit the Data;
* adapt the Data;
* exploit the Data commercially whether by sub-licensing it, combining it with other data, or by including it in your own product or application.
The first point covers 16(a), 16(b), 16(c) and 16(e); the second point covers 16(d); the third point joins the dots to cover 16(ba). Hence, the licence covers "any act that is restricted by copyright".
As there is no share-alike provision which imposes upon your own licensing options, it would appear that we are granted a licence of the type in clause 2, and nothing in it restricts our users' ability to grant such a licence themselves. As for clause 1, this licence has been authored by the OS, exists in fixed form and is prominently announced from the OS OpenData site - therefore there can be no doubt that it is "explicit permission". Any person that thinks otherwise should be very careful never to find themselves in the presence of two doctors.
There is a requirement for attribution, and any object derived from the various OS OpenData products should already be tagged as such. If anyone has been importing stuff from OS OpenData and not tagging the source, they should be taken out and shot - this particular requirement has been right there on the mailing lists and the wiki since day one (since around half-past three on day one, in fact).
Some may say "surely that licence includes removing the attribution". It doesn't. That is not an "act that is restricted by copyright". That is a matter of the contractual relationship between the parties. It may be true that a person receiving the data may end up not attributing the OS. That is their problem, not ours. It has been suggested that it is sufficient for someone to point back to OSM, using our copyright info page to properly attribute the OS over the whole dataset (in addition to the individual items within it). We cannot write anything into the terms of the contract that tells people that they must adhere to the licence, or the consequences for failure, as there is a long history of case law (stretching back to 1886) which maintains that a contract cannot contain deterrent terms.
Readers should alo note that I have assumed that the data provided by the OS is covered by copyright in the first place - there seems to be an increasing body of legal opinion in common law jurisdictions that the vector data is not, and neither is the vector data derived from raster data.
Based on that, my own interpretation of the scenario as a pragmatic layman with some experience of the legal system (note: not a lawyer) is that data derived from the OS OpenData release is on balance of probabilities acceptable under CT.
I therefore intend on agreeing to CT and relicensing my previous contributions before the end of September.
If anyone is in any doubt, create a new account and avoid deriving from OS data in the meantime. This will allow you to continue contributing to OSM until the matter is settled.