Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Australian Government Data

[Diane Peters]

Hi everyone,

Simon is correct. We've discussed and now we're discussing further
internally at CC. Will be back shortly, hopefully this week.

Thanks,
Diane

Diane M. Peters
General Counsel, Creative Commons
Portland, Oregon
http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters
13:00-21:00 UTC


On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 2:29 AM, Simon Poole  wrote:

> The LWG is working on a statement wrt CC-BY 4.0 compatibility and is in
> direct contact with Creative Commons.
>
> I suspect that we will have something in latest a couple of weeks,
> including a template waiver/statement that we will need for such sources.
>
> Simon
>
> Am 09.01.2017 um 03:07 schrieb cleary:
> > After previous discussion in the legal-talk and talk-au lists, I made
> > further approaches to the Australian Department of Prime Minister and
> > Cabinet regarding access to data published on data.gov.au including the
> > PSMA Administrative Boundaries.
> >
> > Today I received a reply. The full letter is reproduced below.
> >
> > In particular, note the statement that "we can confirm that CC BY 4.0
> > allows OpenStreetMap to apply its own licence (in this case, ODbL) to
> > its product. We can also confirm that attribution on the OpenStreetMap
> > contributors page would be sufficient to meet the attribution
> > requirements of the licence."
> >
> > While I don't seek to extrapolate this statement to all CC BY 4.0
> > licensed data from other sources, it seems clear that this statement
> > from the authorised person in Australia's Department of Prime Minister
> > and Cabinet, would be sufficient for us to use the relevant Australian
> > Government data in OSM. With OSM supported by such a statement, I find
> > it difficult to see how the Australian Government (or anyone else) could
> > later try to say we do not have the necessary permission to use the
> > data.
> >
> > In my correspondence to the Government, I referred to the Contributors
> > page of the wiki, and I would reasonably take the response to refer to
> > this page.
> >
> > I had previously undertaken that any response from the Australian
> > authorities would be submitted to the legal-talk list for
> > consideration. I will defer posting to talk-au list until I have
> > feedback from legal-talk.
> >
> >
> > ___
> >
> >
> >
> > Australian Government
> > Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
> >
> > Ref: EC16-002146
> >
> >
> >
> > Mr Michael Cleary
> > OpenStreetMap
> > ..
> > (private address removed)
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Sir
> >
> > Thank you for your letter of 21 November 2016 regarding the publishing
> > of government data on OpenStreetMap. The Secretary has asked me to reply
> > on his behalf. Public data policy matters fall within my
> > responsibilities.
> >
> > The current policy on licensing for government data is covered by the
> > Guidelines on Licensing Public Sector Information for Australian
> > Government Entities, which is published by the Department of
> > Communication and the Arts. This policy states that public sector
> > information should be released free of charge under a Creative Commons
> > 'BY' 4.0 licence (CC BY 4.0). The CC BY 4.0 licence is an open licence
> > that is intended to enable the use, reuse and commercialisation of open
> > government data. Consistent with this policy, the PSMA Administrative
> > Boundaries have been published under this licensing framework.
> >
> > Due to the large number of datasets on data.gov.au and. in some
> > instances, obligations on the government due to its licensing
> > arrangements with its data suppliers, we are unable to amend the licence
> > terms, or provide exemptions on an individual basis.
> >
> > However, we can confirm that CC BY 4.0 allows OpenStreetMap to apply its
> > own licence (in this case, ODbL) to its product. We can also confirm
> > that attribution on the OpenStreetMap contributors page would be
> > sufficient to meet the attrtibution requirements of the licence.
> >
> > We understand that licence terms can be complex and legalistic. There
> > are several processes underway across government to improve data
> > accessibility and address any barriers to use. The Productivity
> > Commission's draft report on its Inquiry into Data Availability and Use
> > discusses how public sector licensing arrangements can have limitations
> > on the use of government data. Specifically, chapter three discusses
> > issues relevant to your request. The draft report can be downloaded from
> > http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/data-access/draft. The Final
> > Report is due for release in March next year, and the Government will
> > respond in due course to the recommendations put forward.
> >
> > The Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet is also undertaking public
> > consultation to gather information on the datasets Australians want
> > access to, and any issues they face in using them, including licensing.
> > I encourage you to contribute to this consultati

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Response regarding use of PSMA Administrative Boundaries (Australia)

[Diane Peters]

Do you mind expanding on what you mean when you say CC hasn't addressed the
viral nature of BY 4.0 relative to databases? Trying to understand.

Diane M. Peters
General Counsel, Creative Commons
Portland, Oregon
http://creativecommons.org/staff#dianepeters
13:00-21:00 UTC


On Fri, Jul 8, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Simon Poole  wrote:

>
> >
> > There are no substantial differences between the CC BY 3.0 and the CC BY
> > 4.0 licences. A summary of the differences can be found here:
> >
> https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/licensing-considerations/version4/
> .
> > CC BY 4.0 (like CC BY 3.0) does not prevent OpenStreetMap from applying
> > your own licence to your products but requires end users to comply with
> > the CC BY licence (in relation to the original data).
> >
> Just a further remark, this comparaison does not address the potential
> viral character of CC by 4.0 when database rights are involved (which
> unluckily CC seems to be completly quiet on), which again would cause
> issues when including such data in OSM.
>
> Simon
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] licenses suitable for import

[Diane Peters]

Just to be clear on the attribution removal requirement in CC's licenses,
Erik asserted:

I wish people would stop releasing data with CC-by; "you have to
attribute us, but you have to remove that attribution when ever we
want you too" which is not present in ODbL so

There is no such absolute obligation. In 4.0, the removal requirement
provides: "If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the
information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A)
 to the
extent reasonably practicable."  (Sec. 3a3
). And in 3.0, it's
"to the extent practicable", which from a CC perspective is functionally
the equivalent (Sec. 4a
).

Diane

On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:47 PM, Tom Lee  wrote:

> Tobias, the best option for ensuring the data is usable by OSM is an
> explicit statement of permission for the OpenStreetMap project to
> incorporate and use the data under the project's terms. This is generally
> considered preferable to a dataset that is ODbL-licensed without such a
> statement.
>
> However, I would encourage you to consider non-OSM users as well when
> choosing the license. ODbL is not widely used outside of OSM. A license
> like CC-BY 4.0 is more widely used and actively maintained. Choosing it
> would ensure compatibility with a large number of non-OSM datasets. And if
> paired with a permission statement like what's described above, OSM could
> still use the data without any license compatibility worries.
>
> Of course, if you can do without attribution, you might consider something
> even more simple that disclaims liability but imposes no other terms. If
> that's an option let me know and I can turn up some examples.
>
> On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 5:43 PM, Erik Johansson  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Tobias Wendorff
>>  wrote:
>> > Dear list,
>> >
>> > could you please recommend me licenses for releasing data to ODbL?
>> > From my point of view, compatible licenses are CC-license without
>> > "SA" and "BY" and (only if possible) CC0 and PD or finally special
>> > license, like the following one:
>> >
>> > Some crporations like "Deutsche Bahn" (the biggest rail corporation
>> > in Germany) has released their data under CC BY 4.0 with a special text
>> > for OpenStreetMap (roughly translated):
>> >
>> > "If the data of Deutsche Bahn is part of the OpenStreetMap database
>> work,
>> > a reference to the Deutsche Bahn AG in the list of contributors is
>> enough.
>> > Crediting DB at each use of the data by a licensee of the mentioned
>> database
>> > work is no longer necessary then. Indirect credits (with reference to
>> the
>> > publisher of this databse work, which refers to the DB) is sufficient."
>> >
>> > Actually, that's a kind of dual-licensing with a special license for
>> OSM.
>> > From my understanding, releasing data ODbL would be the worst thing,
>> > since the "BY" attribution of the data donator isn't compatible, is it?
>>
>>
>> I've choosen not to start on a couple of imports because of the CC-by
>> issue, I've gotten ok from the owners but they want to be included on
>> http://osm.org/contributors . Deutsche Bahn seems to be much more
>> free, I interpret it as source=Deutsche Bahn seems to be enough.
>>
>>
>> I wish people would stop releasing data with CC-by; "you have to
>> attribute us, but you have to remove that attribution when ever we
>> want you too" which is not present in ODbL so
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> /emj
>>
>> ___
>> legal-talk mailing list
>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>>
>
>
> ___
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[Diane Peters]

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 9:11 AM, Rob Myers  wrote:

> On 07/16/2010 04:33 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 5:19 AM, Rob Myers > <mailto:r...@robmyers.org>> wrote:
>>
>>On 07/16/2010 10:05 AM, Anthony wrote:
>>
>>BY-SA almost certainly applies to the OSM database as a whole,
>>even if
>>it doesn't apply to some individual parts of the database.  So
>>you're
>>wrong that this is an undeniable fact.
>>
>>Which jurisdiction are we talking here?
>>
>> I can't think of any jurisdiction where this wouldn't be the case.  I'm
>> most familiar with US copyright law, however.
>>
>
> Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases, OKFN
> seem to think it might. I'm erring on the side of caution. If you can
> provide any clearer guidance I'd be very grateful. :-)
>
>
> Apologies in advance for inserting a response here - some of the below
relates to other posts on this thread (previous and subsequent).

The assertion above, that Science Commons seems to think that copyright
doesn't apply to databases, is not correct.  Creative Commons (and that
includes our Science Commons project) has always been careful to point out
that "data" is a broad term and can most certainly include copyrightable
content.  (We want to encourage others when they speak of "data" to be
careful to specify what they mean when they use the term.)  Standards of
originality are challenging to apply with predicable results.  They are
subjective to some degree, and they vary between jurisdictions.  We have
also been careful to point out that databases can certainly be subject to
protection under copyright (as distinguished from sui generis protection).
 Whether and to what extent databases are protected by copyright, once
again, differs jurisdiction to jurisdiction.  We believe that in most cases
users of licensed data and databases will treat them as copyrightable out of
an abundance of caution.  This is in part because “doing the math” to figure
out what is or is not restricted by copyright is uncertain and can be
painstaking, which results in high transaction costs.  However, in CC
licenses, we do not attempt to create, by means of contract, conditions on
data or databases that are not based on copyright.

In several posts on this thread the suggestion has been made that BY-SA and
ODbL are comparable, or that ODbL is just like BY-SA.  There are a number of
fundamental differences between CC's licenses and ODbL that at least from
CC's point of view make the two quite different. CC licenses are licenses,
ODbL attempts to create a binding contract; CC licenses do not rely on sui
generis database rights and our BY-SA license doesn't have a "provisioning"
requirement; CC licenses do not distinguish between a work and a "produced
work"; attribution works differently; and CC licenses are clear to apply and
impose conditions on content (including data licensed under their terms)
only where the public domain and (thereafter) fair dealing and other
exceptions and limitations to copyright leave off.  There is more, but those
differences in aggregate make the two sufficiently different so as to avoid
characterization as being generally the same or just alike, at least by
many.

One other point worth mentioning, this one in response to another suggestion
earlier on this thread (apologies again for not inserting this comment
there) to the effect that CC refuses to acknowledge that CC0 contains a
license.  On the contrary, we have discussed on numerous occasions why a
fall-back license is necessary. This was a key drafting point based on input
from many of CC's legal affiliates around the world.  In many countries,
including the U.S., there is no indisputable, sure mechanism for placing a
work in the public domain. Therefore, it is necessary to provide a back-up
license that gives essentially the same rights to the public in the event
the public domain waiver is not effective for any reason. When we at CC
speak of license as opposed to public domain, our focus is on function and
practical effect, not formality.

Diane Peters
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk