[talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[Ashley Kyd]

Hi all,

Just trying to do a bit of research to catch up on the issues but found the
wiki a bit unhelpful. I've started categorising data sources by
license.
If you have a spare moment or two and know of any I've missed, please pop by
and see if you can tag a few more.

Particularly, are there any other Australian data sources other than Nearmap
that are CC BY-SA?

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[Grant Slater]

On 7 April 2011 13:12, Ashley Kyd  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just trying to do a bit of research to catch up on the issues but found the
> wiki a bit unhelpful. I've started categorising data sources by license. If
> you have a spare moment or two and know of any I've missed, please pop by
> and see if you can tag a few more.
>

This list by Mike may help:
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/004136.html

Regards
 Grant

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[Alex (Maxious) Sadleir]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:12 PM, Ashley Kyd  wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Just trying to do a bit of research to catch up on the issues but found the
> wiki a bit unhelpful. I've started categorising data sources by license. If
> you have a spare moment or two and know of any I've missed, please pop by
> and see if you can tag a few more.
>
> Particularly, are there any other Australian data sources other than Nearmap
> that are CC BY-SA?

There are a few more on the
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Imports page (like
BoM) and state/territory subpages:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data.australia.gov.au/ACT
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data.australia.gov.au/Victoria
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Data.australia.gov.au/South_Australia/National_Parks

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[David Murn]

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 22:12 +1000, Ashley Kyd wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> Just trying to do a bit of research to catch up on the issues but
> found the wiki a bit unhelpful. I've started categorising data sources
> by license. If you have a spare moment or two and know of any I've
> missed, please pop by and see if you can tag a few more.
> 
> Particularly, are there any other Australian data sources other than
> Nearmap that are CC BY-SA?

Im pretty sure everything from data.gov.au and ABS is CC-BY-SA.  Fairly
sure most of the imports (such as BP and shell) were done from CC-BY-SA
datasets too, although John Smith would be able to confirm/deny that.

David


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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[Alex (Maxious) Sadleir]

On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 10:51 PM, David Murn  wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 22:12 +1000, Ashley Kyd wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just trying to do a bit of research to catch up on the issues but
>> found the wiki a bit unhelpful. I've started categorising data sources
>> by license. If you have a spare moment or two and know of any I've
>> missed, please pop by and see if you can tag a few more.
>>
>> Particularly, are there any other Australian data sources other than
>> Nearmap that are CC BY-SA?
>
> Im pretty sure everything from data.gov.au and ABS is CC-BY-SA.

We got this fixed (NC/SA/ND constrain reuse so the potential value of
that information is diminished); From Feburary 2011, CC-BY is the
standard licence for all Commonwealth Public Sector Information (not
just geodata but the budget papers, election costings etc.):
http://agimo.govspace.gov.au/files/2011/02/Draft-Guidelines-on-Licensing-Public-Sector-Information-for-Australian-Government-Agencies.pdf

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[Grant Slater]

On 7 April 2011 13:51, David Murn  wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 22:12 +1000, Ashley Kyd wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Just trying to do a bit of research to catch up on the issues but
>> found the wiki a bit unhelpful. I've started categorising data sources
>> by license. If you have a spare moment or two and know of any I've
>> missed, please pop by and see if you can tag a few more.
>>
>> Particularly, are there any other Australian data sources other than
>> Nearmap that are CC BY-SA?
>
> Im pretty sure everything from data.gov.au and ABS is CC-BY-SA.  Fairly
> sure most of the imports (such as BP and shell) were done from CC-BY-SA
> datasets too, although John Smith would be able to confirm/deny that.
>

I contacted the nowwhere.com.au/MapData-Sciences who are managers of
the BP and Shell data in October 2010...

Their reply: "It is the property of BP and is intended as a service
for personal use only." (and Shell for the Shell data I assume)

I haven't yet had any luck contacting BP/Shell. MapData Sciences were
not helpful in providing a contact.

Regards
 Grant

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[John Smith]

On 7 April 2011 23:03, Grant Slater  wrote:
> I contacted the nowwhere.com.au/MapData-Sciences who are managers of
> the BP and Shell data in October 2010...
>
> Their reply: "It is the property of BP and is intended as a service
> for personal use only." (and Shell for the Shell data I assume)
>
> I haven't yet had any luck contacting BP/Shell. MapData Sciences were
> not helpful in providing a contact.

Except the data was a computer generated list of facts, which the
courts in Australia state no longer has protection under copyright.

Also the locations have been fixed for numerous locations so if you
ever get in contact with anyone please let them know about OSM having
more accurate data than they offer, I think 30km out is still the
worst case.

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[David Murn]

On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 23:27 +1000, John Smith wrote:
> On 7 April 2011 23:03, Grant Slater  wrote:
> > I contacted the nowwhere.com.au/MapData-Sciences who are managers of
> > the BP and Shell data in October 2010...
> >
> ...
>
> Also the locations have been fixed for numerous locations so if you
> ever get in contact with anyone please let them know about OSM having
> more accurate data than they offer, I think 30km out is still the
> worst case.

When I travelled to Perth, I found (and fixed) some fuel stations that
were marked upto 100km from home.  'Eyre Highway, Cocklebiddy' for
example refers to a road almost 400km between 3 roadhouses.  Ive fixed a
few of these, but like others I have a lot of corrections I found and
tagged in my GPS, but which Im unsure about processing and uploading.
(And thats not just my excuse for not wanting to look at 35mb worth
of .gpx and .osm files)

David


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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 23:27:57 +1000
John Smith  wrote:

> Also the locations have been fixed for numerous locations so if you
> ever get in contact with anyone please let them know about OSM having
> more accurate data than they offer, I think 30km out is still the
> worst case.

The locations have had to be corrected in almost every case that I have
passed by, and the Victorian Police Stations also.

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[Ian Sergeant]

On 7 April 2011 23:03, Grant Slater  wrote:

> Their reply: "It is the property of BP and is intended as a service
> for personal use only." (and Shell for the Shell data I assume)

On 7 April 2011 23:27, John Smith  wrote:

> Except the data was a computer generated list of facts, which the
> courts in Australia state no longer has protection under copyright.

If the data owner doesn't grant permission under an acceptable licence
then we shouldn't relying on one interpretation of very recent
Australian case.  Especially since there are other areas of law that
may come into play here.

Keeping OSM data clean is the priority.

Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[John Smith]

On 8 April 2011 09:28, Ian Sergeant  wrote:
> If the data owner doesn't grant permission under an acceptable licence
> then we shouldn't relying on one interpretation of very recent
> Australian case.  Especially since there are other areas of law that
> may come into play here.

Actually the court case was a few years ago I think, this was an
appeal against the earlier ruling.

> Keeping OSM data clean is the priority.

It's a pity those pushing for the current license change aren't so
adamant, it seems to me they haven't put enough effort into informing
people about the full ramifications of the CTs.

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 10:40:15 +1000
John Smith  wrote:

> On 8 April 2011 09:28, Ian Sergeant  wrote:
> > If the data owner doesn't grant permission under an acceptable
> > licence then we shouldn't relying on one interpretation of very
> > recent Australian case.  Especially since there are other areas of
> > law that may come into play here.  
> 
> Actually the court case was a few years ago I think, this was an
> appeal against the earlier ruling.

The Court system has affirmed the original decision.
Copyright (Au) depends on thinking about the input, and cannot be
derived from machine generated data. 

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[Ian Sergeant]

On 8 April 2011 12:27, Elizabeth Dodd  wrote:

> The Court system has affirmed the original decision.
> Copyright (Au) depends on thinking about the input, and cannot be
> derived from machine generated data.

The priority is to keep OSM unencumbered, and accordingly in all cases
I'm aware of we have sought permission from the data owner or a
compatible licence rather than rely on a legal technicality to use the
data against the data owner's wishes.

With respect, if we are going to do down the path of using data
against the owner's wishes using the law as a shield, I'd want to see
a pretty solid legal opinion covering all aspects of the data use, not
just copyright, as each case will depend on its own facts.

Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[John Smith]

On 8 April 2011 13:41, Ian Sergeant  wrote:
> With respect, if we are going to do down the path of using data

We are going down that path with the new CTs and to a lesser extent
ODBL, people haven't been informed well enough about the implications
of accepting the new CTs and there is a LOT of pressure to accept the
new terms, without people being fully informed, and the consequences
for OSM-F are they will end up with tainted data, and lots of it.

> against the owner's wishes using the law as a shield, I'd want to see
> a pretty solid legal opinion covering all aspects of the data use, not
> just copyright, as each case will depend on its own facts.

In this case it's pretty straight forward and matches the legal
rulings almost identically, computer generated lists aren't covered by
copyright any more, you have to put thought into building such a list
for it to be covered.

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[Ian Sergeant]

On 8 April 2011 13:46, John Smith  wrote:

> In this case it's pretty straight forward and matches the legal
> rulings almost identically, computer generated lists aren't covered by
> copyright any more, you have to put thought into building such a list
> for it to be covered.

If you are talking about IceTV here, then you misrepresent the
judgement.  The list was covered by copyright, and as much was
conceded by IceTV.  The case turned on what consitituted a substantial
part of the copyrighted work.

If you are talking about Sensis, than that is still a Federal Court
judgement, which I believe Sensis are seeking leave to appeal to the
High Court, and the results will be very interesting to see.  I hope
the High Court takes the opportunity to clarify what it meant in
IceTV.

Again with respect, what you regard as "pretty straight forward", is
about to be litigated by some of the highest paid lawyers in the
country, in front of the highest court in Australia.  Do you think
they would be spending that time and money if they thought that it was
a straightforward area of settled law?

Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[{withheld}]

On 08/04/11 13:46, John Smith wrote:
> On 8 April 2011 13:41, Ian Sergeant  wrote:
>> against the owner's wishes using the law as a shield, I'd want to see
>> a pretty solid legal opinion covering all aspects of the data use, not
>> just copyright, as each case will depend on its own facts.
> 
> In this case it's pretty straight forward and matches the legal
> rulings almost identically, computer generated lists aren't covered by
> copyright any more, you have to put thought into building such a list
> for it to be covered.

I don't know if you guys realised it; but that is the best reasoning I
have ever heard for why using (initially) bad data (i.e. you thought
about how to correct it) is good for use in OSM. No wonder the project
is going around under its personal little black cloud!

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[John Smith]

On 8 April 2011 14:23, Ian Sergeant  wrote:
> If you are talking about Sensis, than that is still a Federal Court
> judgement, which I believe Sensis are seeking leave to appeal to the
> High Court, and the results will be very interesting to see.  I hope
> the High Court takes the opportunity to clarify what it meant in
> IceTV.

There has already been an appeal over the Sensis decision and the
original ruling against Telstra was upheld, there may be further
appeals but from what I understand the issue is pretty much settled.

> Again with respect, what you regard as "pretty straight forward", is
> about to be litigated by some of the highest paid lawyers in the
> country, in front of the highest court in Australia.  Do you think
> they would be spending that time and money if they thought that it was
> a straightforward area of settled law?

Please list sources for this comment, because as far as I understand
it there is no further appeals on the matter currently pending.

In any case I noticed you completely skipped the next part of my
comment, OSM-F is heading directly into very tainted data due to the
debarcle that is the current license change, so unless and until OSM-F
decides to do things properly any minor amount of data is the least of
their problems.

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[John Smith]

On 8 April 2011 15:57, Ian Sergeant  wrote:
> On 8 April 2011 15:34, John Smith  wrote:
>
>> Please list sources for this comment, because as far as I understand
>> it there is no further appeals on the matter currently pending.
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/business/directories-fight-to-go-to-high-court-20110113-19pw2.html

Which was decided in February...

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/336231/court_upholds_right_copy_lucrative_databases/

> I'm not going to broaden this out into yet another discussion about
> OSM and the licence change in this thread.
>
> However, saying or demonstrating that there is some tainted data in
> OSM will never be an excuse to deliberately introduce more.  Where it
> is found it should be removed.

You were the one bringing up this point, I don't believe I have
introduced tainted data.

> Just to tie this back to my original point - lets only include data
> with the owner's informed consent or a known compatible licence.  Once
> everybody on the project becomes a lay lawyer and includes data that
> they believe to be unencumbered, we'll end up with a right mess.

Why confuse the issue, my point was simple, people haven't been
allowed to make an informed decision regarding the license change, but
have been pressured in various ways to accept the new CTs. It doesn't
take a legal genius to work out that if you force people into a corner
without giving them relevant information people will make mistakes,
list Steve has already shown, and in turn breach the CTs because he
didn't have the right to agree.

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[Ian Sergeant]

On 8 April 2011 16:33, John Smith  wrote:

> Which was decided in February...
>
> http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/336231/court_upholds_right_copy_lucrative_databases/

John - if you are going to argue this, please check your references
more carefully.

You give a reference from February 2010, reporting on the original
Federal Court hearing.

I gave you a reference from January 2011, describing the High Court
leave for appeal request.  Your reference predates mine by a year.
The appeal hadn't even been discussed in February 2010.  Get with the
program.

> Why confuse the issue, my point was simple, people haven't been
> allowed to make an informed decision regarding the license change ...

Despite your attempts to sidetrack this discussion from the your data
import to some wider OSM licencing issue, I won't be sidetracked here.

You have said you consider the facts of your data import to be
substantially similar to the Sensis case.  Well one of the largest
companies in Australia (but smaller than BP) continues legal action
with expensive lawyers in the High Court in atttempt to prevent that
data being used.

You consider that you are correct in law.  You might be, or you might
not.  Obviously some corporates with serious clout think you might not
be.

I don't think pushing OSM to the legal bleeding edge is the right
thing to do.  Owner's informed consent or compatible licence, or
reject the data.

If you still consider importing this data without permission was in
the best interest of the project, I'm afraid we are going to have to
agree to disagree.  Others can make up their own mind.

Thanks,
Ian.

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 16:58:04 +1000
Ian Sergeant  wrote:

> If you still consider importing this data without permission was in
> the best interest of the project, I'm afraid we are going to have to
> agree to disagree.  Others can make up their own mind.

and we have had to edit the data and correct it, so what is in the OSM
database is not what "we" got from BP or Shell

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 16:33:57 +1000


> >> Please list sources for this comment, because as far as I
> >> understand it there is no further appeals on the matter currently
> >> pending.  
> >
> > http://www.smh.com.au/business/directories-fight-to-go-to-high-court-20110113-19pw2.html
> >   

that comment is that Telstra is asking for special leave to appeal
after that is decided in court then another stage would be to appeal
however the High Court has to accept the request to have an appeal first


perhaps you could learn to read exactly what it says before you
continue bluffing?

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[John Smith]

On 8 April 2011 16:58, Ian Sergeant  wrote:
> John - if you are going to argue this, please check your references
> more carefully.

As I stated before I wasn't aware that the appeal was being appealed,
although your link does suggest they had 30 days to do something, and
were considering their options so your link isn't conclusive in that
respect either...

>> Why confuse the issue, my point was simple, people haven't been
>> allowed to make an informed decision regarding the license change ...
>
> Despite your attempts to sidetrack this discussion from the your data
> import to some wider OSM licencing issue, I won't be sidetracked here.

I would have thought the bigger issue was important, especially in
light of how the licensing changes have basically told people to
accept or they won't be allowed to contribute any more with scant
details of what they're accepting. In any case it is the bigger
licensing issues in the first place that spawned this thread.

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[John Smith]

On 8 April 2011 16:58, Ian Sergeant  wrote:
> Despite your attempts to sidetrack this discussion from the your data
> import to some wider OSM licencing issue, I won't be sidetracked here.

The problem is no one seems to want to answer the hard questions,
everyone that should be dealing with these issues just seem to want to
ignore them and hope they stopped being asked. I don't wish to seem to
be picking on you personally, however someone needs to man up and take
responsibility for their choices or change where OSM-F is headed if
the positions are unsupportable with facts.

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[Elizabeth Dodd]

On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 20:47:58 +1000
John Smith  wrote:

> On 8 April 2011 16:58, Ian Sergeant  wrote:
> > Despite your attempts to sidetrack this discussion from the your
> > data import to some wider OSM licencing issue, I won't be
> > sidetracked here.  
> 
> The problem is no one seems to want to answer the hard questions,
> everyone that should be dealing with these issues just seem to want to
> ignore them and hope they stopped being asked. I don't wish to seem to
> be picking on you personally, however someone needs to man up and take
> responsibility for their choices or change where OSM-F is headed if
> the positions are unsupportable with facts.

Let's summarise some very important questions

(1) What is the point at which non-ODbL data will be removed? Is it
related to number of accounts signed up? Is it related to percentage
loss of data?
(2) Why can't we go with CC-by-SA 3.0? And if not suitable, why can't
we make CC-by-SA 4.0 suitable?

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

Re: [talk-au] Wiki + Data Sources + Licensing Categories

[John Smith]

On 8 April 2011 20:47, John Smith  wrote:
> On 8 April 2011 16:58, Ian Sergeant  wrote:
>> Despite your attempts to sidetrack this discussion from the your data
>> import to some wider OSM licencing issue, I won't be sidetracked here.
>
> The problem is no one seems to want to answer the hard questions,
> everyone that should be dealing with these issues just seem to want to
> ignore them and hope they stopped being asked. I don't wish to seem to
> be picking on you personally, however someone needs to man up and take
> responsibility for their choices or change where OSM-F is headed if
> the positions are unsupportable with facts.
>

And the silence continues. As I said before Ian, I'm not personally
looking to pick on you or anyone for that matter, but those that made
specific choices don't think they should justify themselves and give
straight answers to straight questions.

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