Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Michael Collinson]

On 31/10/2011 17:51, 80n wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Michael Collinson > wrote:


Could you please, for about the fifth time of asking, publish a
verbatim

copy the permission that you have received.  If you have some
reason that
you can't then you need to explain yourself.

80n


??

A verbatim copy of the permission that we have received is here:


http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australian_government_public_information_datasets

You can see the drafting history using the View History button. It
was created using the input and review of data.gov.au
 over a series of correspondence I had with
them. I believe it is clear, and by doing it as a public document,
transparent.  They have reviewed and are happy with the final
version, so earlier correspondence, as is usual in legal
discussion and as waldo00 points out, is now superseded.


Are you saying that you published the information on the wiki page and 
*then* asked someone at data.gov.au  to review it 
and give their assent?  If so then please publish the email or letter 
that contains this affirmation.  I think that is what we are looking for.




And to touch upon other issues raised in this thread:

1) I generally take "yes" to mean "yes" rather than looking for
reasons why it should mean no. 



The lack of evidence to support the claim that OSM have "explicit 
special permission..." is cause enough in this case to not take "yes" 
at face value.


There is no claim of special permission.



2) No preferential treatment has been given, if anyone else wants
to do the right thing and ask for clarification for a specific use
of data.gov.au  data for other projects, write
to them.


And indeed Andrew Harvey did just that as he wrote here: 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-September/008464.html


The reply contained the statement:
> "We do not consider that what we are providing is “special permission”

As this directly contradicts the statement written on the wiki by 
yourself, and echoed in Grant's email, you can surely see why more 
information about this supposed arrangement would help to clarify matters.


I fail to see a contradiction. If you are not sure about something, you 
ask explicitly and get an explicit answer. That is what we got.  That is 
what is written on the wiki with the kind assistance of data.gov.au.


If it helps, me formally affirm and represent what I have said before: I 
have had a series of correspondance with data.gov.au where: 1) I have 
explictly pointed out we are moving to another license specifically 
written for open data, that it might not jive with CC-BY and so they may 
not be happy with the provisions for downstream attributions, and asked 
them if they could explictly give us permission to continue use or if we 
should remove it; 2) The conclusion being yes, we can "incorporate and 
publish such CC-BY licensed geographic coordinate datasets under a free 
and open license, including the Open Database License, provided that 
primary attribution is made here 
[http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets] 
and that each dataset used is also listed here in the format /Dataset 
Name, Date Published, License, Agency Name, originally retrieved from 
http://data.australia.gov.au"/; 3) For public transparency, the 
operative version of the statement is not in the correspondance but 
directly drafted at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets 
and actively reviewed by data.gov.au to their satisfaction.


Mike
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Andrew Laughton]

> I fail to see a contradiction. If you are not sure about something, you
> ask explicitly and get an explicit answer. That is what we got.  That is
> what is written on the wiki with the kind assistance of data.gov.au.
> If it helps, me formally affirm and represent what I have said before: I
> have had a series of correspondance with data.gov.au where: 1) I have
> explictly pointed out we are moving to another license specifically written
> for open data, that it might not jive with CC-BY and so they may not be
> happy with the provisions for downstream attributions, and asked them if
> they could explictly give us permission to continue use or if we should
> remove it; 2) The conclusion being yes, we can "incorporate and publish
> such CC-BY licensed geographic coordinate datasets under a free and open
> license, including the Open Database License, provided that primary
> attribution is made here [
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets]
> and that each dataset used is also listed here in the format *Dataset
> Name, Date Published, License, Agency Name, originally retrieved from
> http://data.australia.gov.au"*; 3) For public transparency, the operative
> version of the statement is not in the correspondance but directly drafted
> at
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasetsand
>  actively reviewed by
> data.gov.au to their satisfaction.
>
>
Hi Mike

I might be able to help a little.
The words "... provided that primary attribution is made  ..."
Would seem at first glance the exclude any license that does not require
attribution.

Perhaps you could explain to us what happens if a third party takes OSM
data, and publishes it without any attribution at all.

Would they be in violation of the Open Database License ? If not, the
problem is that you are now distributing government data in violation of
copyright law.

Andrew.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Richard Fairhurst]

Andrew Laughton wrote:
> Perhaps you could explain to us what happens if a third party takes 
> OSM data, and publishes it without any attribution at all.
> Would they be in violation of the Open Database License ?

Yes.

The summary (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/) says:

"Attribute: You must attribute any public use of the database, or works
produced from the database, in the manner specified in the ODbL. For any use
or redistribution of the database, or works produced from it, you must make
clear to others the license of the database and keep intact any notices on
the original database."

And the full licence says:

"4.2 Notices. If You Publicly Convey this Database, any Derivative Database,
or the Database as part of a Collective Database, then You must: [...] c.
Keep intact any copyright or Database Right notices and notices that refer
to this License."

"4.3 [...] if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice
associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person
that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the
Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative
Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is
available under this License."

Richard



--
View this message in context: 
http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/ODbL-data-gov-au-permission-granted-tp6824368p6995976.html
Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Richard Fairhurst]

[crosspost removed]

80n wrote:
> Most importantly it allows subsequent copies of the produced work to be
> made with no attribution.

No, it doesn't. An attribution statement without a downstream requirement
is not "reasonably calculated". This has been gone over ad nauseam in
legal-talk.

Richard




___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Michael Collinson]

On 15/11/2011 11:52, Andrew Laughton wrote:


I fail to see a contradiction. If you are not sure about
something, you ask explicitly and get an explicit answer. That is
what we got.  That is what is written on the wiki with the kind
assistance of data.gov.au .
If it helps, me formally affirm and represent what I have said
before: I have had a series of correspondance with data.gov.au
 where: 1) I have explictly pointed out we are
moving to another license specifically written for open data, that
it might not jive with CC-BY and so they may not be happy with the
provisions for downstream attributions, and asked them if they
could explictly give us permission to continue use or if we should
remove it; 2) The conclusion being yes, we can "incorporate and
publish such CC-BY licensed geographic coordinate datasets under a
free and open license, including the Open Database License,
provided that primary attribution is made here

[http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets]
and that each dataset used is also listed here in the format
/Dataset Name, Date Published, License, Agency Name, originally
retrieved from http://data.australia.gov.au"/; 3) For public
transparency, the operative version of the statement is not in the
correspondance but directly drafted at

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets
and actively reviewed by data.gov.au  to their
satisfaction.


Hi Mike

I might be able to help a little.
The words "... provided that primary attribution is made  ..."
Would seem at first glance the exclude any license that does not 
require attribution.


Perhaps you could explain to us what happens if a third party takes 
OSM data, and publishes it without any attribution at all.


Would they be in violation of the Open Database License ? If not, 
the problem is that you are now distributing government data in 
violation of copyright law.


Andrew.


Hi Andrew,

Richard has just answered the direct question, and better than I can. 
May I make a couple of other observations that may also help.


First, The new OSM contributor terms were deliberately written so that 
if anyone wants attribution, (you, me, but chiefly aimed at goverment 
organisations making data available), then they can get it and it 
survives any license that OSM uses, (even one without attribution!). 
This was the key question I put to them, was this acceptable by itself? 
and the answer was yes.


Second, a personal perspective of one thing I've learnt slowly over the 
last three years.  Open IP data in particular, as compared to software 
and general creative works such as photos and writings, needs 
attribution breaking up into a series of levels and the original 
publisher of data should state clearly what they want.  I think 
(personal view) that this underlies a lot of the travails we have had 
and that reviews of Creative Commons and OpenDataCommons (ODbL) licenses 
need to pay attention to it  ... i.e. important no matter what project 
you happen to be in.  I started a paper 
http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_103fdxjk3qt which went to 
Creative Commons as a way encapsulating some of our experiences ... it 
is still very rough, but I am continuing to work it as formal input to 
the CC 4 process.  In summary, what I think is eventually required is 
are license(s) whose attribution clauses clearly allow or do not allow this:


o OSM incorporates data.gov.au data into the OSM database.  OSM 
attributes data.gov.au on its web page, "primary" or "Level 1" 
attribution. I think this is very important whether or not a legal 
obligation.


o Someone extracts some OSM data (one node or the whole thing, with or 
without data.gov.au), and no matter how they do it, they get a either a 
copy of OSM's web page or a link to it. This is "Level 2" attribution. I 
feel that this is useful, practical but not essential.


o That person or organisation mixes OSM data with their own and 
publishes it. They Level 1 attribute OSM on their website.  There is now 
an attribution chain back to data.gov.au ... I think that is the key 
thing.  Level 3 attribution, providing data.gov.au attribution, should 
not be required.


o A new person then makes a map from the last set of data, they Level 1 
attribute the last set.  Here, OSM's attribution has also now directly 
gone but remains in the chain and the Level 4 requirement of having to 
attribute thousands and thousands on a single map is not an issue.


Mike
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Andrew Laughton]

This is different to what I thought is was.
Could someone please remind me why Nearmap and Google maps do not want us
to trace their aerial views ?

Also if I agree to the new license, is there an easy way to delete all my
Yahoo aerial tracing, or is this now allowed ?

I think I had a source tag on most, if not all of it, but at the moment I
am locked out from viewing it.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Richard Weait]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Andrew Laughton
 wrote:
> This is different to what I thought is was.
> Could someone please remind me why Nearmap and Google maps do not want us to
> trace their aerial views ?

That they don't want us to trace from their images is enough.  They
don't need to offer a reason.

> Also if I agree to the new license, is there an easy way to delete all my
> Yahoo aerial tracing, or is this now allowed ?

Why would you want to remove that data?

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Michael Collinson]

On 15/11/2011 11:58, 80n wrote:
Can you please publish the verbatim correspondence that you have had 
with your man at data.gov.au ?  Your 
interpretation is fine, but others may see nuances that you have 
overlooked.


The statement on the wiki is not a statement from data.gov.au 
 and counts for nothing unless you have a document 
from your man at data.gov.au  that references it 
and says yes that's ok.  Do you have such a document?


Gosh, this is getting kakfaesque. Hope this puts this it to bed:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission 
and copied below in response to my request today, also copied below.


Mike
-

Hi Michael,

Thank you for your email.

The attribution statement

“Contains data from Australian government public information datasets. 
The original datasets are available from the Australian government data 
website  under Creative Commons - Attribution 2.5 
Australia (CC-BY)  and 
Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC-BY) 
. We have also been 
given explicit permission to incorporate and publish such CC-BY licensed 
geographic coordinate datasets under a free and open license, including 
the Open Database License, provided that primary attribution is made 
here and that each dataset used is also listed here in the format 
/Dataset Name, Date Published, License, Agency Name, originally 
retrieved from// //http://data.australia.gov.au/ 
: “


accurately reflects what we have said.

Regards,

Data.gov.au team.

On 15/11/2011 11:35, Michael Collinson wrote:


Hi again,

Thanks for your email of 19th October.   I am rather embarrassed to do 
this but may I ask to you give a more formal assent to satisfy some of 
our map data contributors and that I can publish?


May be: "The attribution statement

“Contains data from Australian government public information datasets. 
The original datasets are available from the Australian government 
data website  under Creative Commons - 
Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC-BY) 
 and Creative Commons 
- Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC-BY) 
. We have also been 
given explicit permission to incorporate and publish such CC-BY 
licensed geographic coordinate datasets under a free and open license, 
including the Open Database License, provided that primary attribution 
is made here and that each dataset used is also listed here in the 
format /Dataset Name, Date Published, License, Agency Name, originally 
retrieved from// //http://data.australia.gov.au/ 
: “


accurately reflects what we have said."

Regards,
Michael Collinson
OpenStreetMap Foundation





___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Andrew Laughton]

>
>
> > Also if I agree to the new license, is there an easy way to delete all my
> > Yahoo aerial tracing, or is this now allowed ?
>
> Why would you want to remove that data?
>

I do not want to, but this is the reason I originally disagreed, because
the derived data is not compatible with the open database license, and
needed to be removed.
Mostly lakes and rivers.

Is it now OK to leave this data intact ?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Richard Weait]

On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Andrew Laughton
 wrote:
>>
>> > Also if I agree to the new license, is there an easy way to delete all
>> > my
>> > Yahoo aerial tracing, or is this now allowed ?
>>
>> Why would you want to remove that data?
>
> I do not want to, but this is the reason I originally disagreed, because the
> derived data is not compatible with the open database license, and needed to
> be removed.
> Mostly lakes and rivers.
>
> Is it now OK to leave this data intact ?

Yahoo granted permission for us to trace from their imagery.  yahoo
imagery was available in josm and potlatch for quite some time.  So
I'd expect that your tracing of yahoo imagery is fine unless I
misunderstand what you did.

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Michael Collinson]

On 15/11/2011 15:54, Andrew Laughton wrote:

This is different to what I thought is was.
Could someone please remind me why Nearmap and Google maps do not want 
us to trace their aerial views ?


Google just don't allow it in their basic terms of service. We have 
asked them to allow us and the informal answer was that the imagery 
comes from different suppliers under different agreements, so it would 
be just too difficult. We also provide a map from our own website as 
well as map data so are a potential competitor ... but that is me 
speculating.


Nearmap have a business model that requires them to claim copyright from 
their commercial customers of not only the imagery but anything that is 
traced from it.  Therefore they were very tightly constrained to make 
sure they did nothing that undermined their commercial business. Both 
they, and us, tried very hard but in the end I guess their lawyers were 
unable to sign off on it from a commercial risk point of view.


Bing make no claim on anything traced as long as it is put in the OSM 
database.  Me speculating again; this is a case where having a 
share-alike license is a good thing, Microsoft, like IBM and Novell with 
Linux, can make something available safe in the knowledge that it cannot 
be snaffled and improved by a competitor during at least a business 
cycle, help their customers with an OSM layer, and eventually spend less 
money on other commercial map providers. It will be great if they can 
extend their higher-resolution coverage of Australian non-city areas, 
something to work on.




Also if I agree to the new license, is there an easy way to delete all 
my Yahoo aerial tracing, or is this now allowed ?


I think I had a source tag on most, if not all of it, but at the 
moment I am locked out from viewing it.


Yahoo imagery is or or shortly will be longer available as they are 
winding up their own map unit, the imagery delivery has been on 
auto-pilot for some time. The permission to use it for past tracing 
remains unchanged and they make no copyright claim over the tracings 
made,  so I hope that solves the question?  If not or you or anyone else 
has other difficult data, let me know and we will try to help. We have 
one instance where a contributor can accept for data in one area of the 
world but not another area, and another instance where a contributor 
feels they cannot accept for contributions made during a certain time 
interval.


Mike

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Andrew Laughton]

> Yahoo granted permission for us to trace from their imagery.  yahoo
> imagery was available in josm and potlatch for quite some time.  So
> I'd expect that your tracing of yahoo imagery is fine unless I
> misunderstand what you did.
>

I knew it was fine at the time, while it licensed by CC-by-SA or CC-by.
I did not know it was OK by them to also publish it under a ODbL license.

This is why I thought both government data and traced data needed to be
removed because of this license change.

So just to be clear, Nearmap are OK with CC-by-SA, but not with ODbL after
a certain date ?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

[Nilbog_aus_OSM]

Thanks Michael. Actually seeing a full copy of an email including the OKing
the use of gov.au data is what I was waiting for also. Getting an explicit
email approving the use is going above and beyond for me and much
appreciated. 

 

I haven't been following OSM as much as I did now my uses for it have
dropped. So please forgive me if the following question has been answered or
has become inflammatory. Does the gov.au Ok also cover the ABS data?

As the ABS data is the only thing left stopping me accepting the new terms.

 

Thanks

Mark 

 

 

 

From: Michael Collinson [mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz] 
Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2011 2:34 AM
To: OSM Australian Talk List
Subject: Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted

 

On 15/11/2011 11:58, 80n wrote: 

Can you please publish the verbatim correspondence that you have had with
your man at data.gov.au?  Your interpretation is fine, but others may see
nuances that you have overlooked.

The statement on the wiki is not a statement from data.gov.au and counts for
nothing unless you have a document from your man at data.gov.au that
references it and says yes that's ok.  Do you have such a document?


Gosh, this is getting kakfaesque. Hope this puts this it to bed:

http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permissi
on and copied below in response to my request today, also copied below.

Mike
-

Hi Michael,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

The attribution statement

"Contains data from Australian government public information datasets. The
original datasets are available from the   Australian
government data website under
  Creative Commons -
Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC-BY) and
  Creative Commons -
Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC-BY). We have also been given explicit
permission to incorporate and publish such CC-BY licensed geographic
coordinate datasets under a free and open license, including the Open
Database License, provided that primary attribution is made here and that
each dataset used is also listed here in the format Dataset Name, Date
Published, License, Agency Name, originally retrieved from
  http://data.australia.gov.au: "

accurately reflects what we have said.

 

Regards,

Data.gov.au team.

On 15/11/2011 11:35, Michael Collinson wrote: 

Hi again,

Thanks for your email of 19th October.   I am rather embarrassed to do this
but may I ask to you give a more formal assent to satisfy some of our map
data contributors and that I can publish?  

May be: "The attribution statement

"Contains data from Australian government public information datasets. The
original datasets are available from the   Australian
government data website under
  Creative Commons -
Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC-BY) and
  Creative Commons -
Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC-BY). We have also been given explicit
permission to incorporate and publish such CC-BY licensed geographic
coordinate datasets under a free and open license, including the Open
Database License, provided that primary attribution is made here and that
each dataset used is also listed here in the format Dataset Name, Date
Published, License, Agency Name, originally retrieved from
  http://data.australia.gov.au: "

accurately reflects what we have said."  

Regards,
Michael Collinson
OpenStreetMap Foundation

 

 

___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au