Re: [talk-au] CC 4.0 was Re: Response regarding use of PSMA Administrative Boundaries (Australia)

[Reuben]

Perhaps someone should make a submission to the Productivity Commission 
inquiry if it is the former:


 Forwarded Message 
Subject: 	[talk-au] The Australian Productivity Commission public 
inquiry on Data Availability and Use.

Date:   Sat, 16 Jul 2016 15:35:35 +1000
To: OSM Australian Talk List 



for info…
The public inquiry will investigate ways to improve the availability and 
use of public and private sector data.
The Australian Productivity Commission has released an issues paper and 
is asking for feedback.

Initial submissions are due by Friday 29 July 2016.

http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/current/data-access


Reuben
On 16/07/16 13:38, Paul Norman wrote:

On 7/12/2016 1:50 AM, Simon Poole wrote:

- the additional requirement to adhere to the AUS privacy regulations
was not addressed in the response, which in itself would be a killer.


It depends if it's part of the license or a reminder that in Australia 
there are other laws that may effect what you can do with the data.


If it's the former, the data is not available under CC BY 4.0 or an 
open license and they're falsely advertising that the data is 
available under an open license. If it's a reminder then it doesn't 
add any new requirements.


If they want it to be a reminder, I'd suggest wording like

Users are reminded that the Australian Privacy Principles under the 
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) may impose additional restrictions on how they 
use the data.


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


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

Re: [talk-au] CC 4.0 was Re: Response regarding use of PSMA Administrative Boundaries (Australia)

[Cameron Shorter]

Hi all,

I've been lurking on this list for a while, work in the Australian 
spatial industry (mainly deploying open source GIS software), and am 
interested in seeing government data GNAF incorporated into OSM. What 
gets worked out with OSM will likely be used for other Australian 
datasets as well.


I expect that Government agencies won't be able to break their 
guidelines about privacy (such as sharing every address and using for 
spam), however, I expect there is more value in the GNAF datasets which 
is of value, and can be released under an OSM compatible license.


Eg: I assume GNAF has every road in Australia which would be of value to 
OSM? If so, we should put a proposal to PSMA: "Can we please have X,Y,Z 
under s OSM compatible license".


Warm regards, Cameron Shorter

On 16/07/2016 12:15 PM, cleary wrote:

I have had further contact with the Spatial Unit at the Department of
Prime Minister and Cabinet regarding the incompatibility of CC-BY and
ODbL licences.  I acknowledged their previous response but asked
politely and respectfully whether it might be possible to review the
situation in the circumstances. An interim response has been received
that it is being looked at again. If we get another refusal, then I
think that is the final answer.

In regard to the Australian Privacy Principles, I think they have
responded to our concern. On this issue, the earlier response stated
very clearly that "We can also confirm that OpenStreetMap is not
responsible for the actions of your downstream users."

The Australian Privacy Principles outline how large  organisations must
handle, use and manage personal information. Section 6 of the Privacy
Act 1988, under which the Privacy Principles are issued, defines
"personal information " as "information or an opinion about an
identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable
.. "  To the best of my knowledge, OSM does not collect or use personal
information about identifiable individuals, except those of us who are
contributors to the map or wiki and, even then, minimal information is
held and I am not aware that OSM is in any danger of breaching the
Principles. Even so, I don't think OSMF has anywhere near the $3 million
annual turnover that would make it subject to the legal requirements of
the Principles.  Google and many other corporations operating in
Australia would however be bound by the Principles, are much more
involved in collecting data about individuals, and therefore may have
more to worry about.

Data from Government sources could also be accompanied by requirements
that data not be used to commit other offences either, such as murder or
robbery. If someone used a map to plan a murder or robbery, no court
would accept a defence that the mapmaker had contributed to the crime by
publishing the map. Same with the Privacy Principles. In my opinion, the
reason that specific attention is drawn to them is that they are a
relatively new concept and privacy issues are very topical at the
moment, whereas laws about murder and robbery are better known. Further
we have the assurance from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
that OSM is not responsible for the actions of downstream users.  I
don't think they could have made it any clearer.

At this stage, the discussion about Privacy Principles may be academic,
as we still await further consideration of the request for explicit
permission to use the PSMA data. If I get a favourable response, I will
submit it to the legal-talk list for their views, to make sure concerns
are addressed before we start including any data.





On Tue, Jul 12, 2016, at 06:50 PM, Simon Poole wrote:

The issues are essentially:

- we did not receive special permission to distribute the data in OSM
with attribution via the website. IMHO the permission we received for
earlier versions boiled down to allowing us to sub-license on ODbL
terms. This has now been implicitly denied. CC by 4.0 does have slightly
looser attribution requirements than previous versions, and it has been
argued that these could be fulfilled by attributing on the OSM website,
however even if that would be possible it would mean that we couldn't
sub-licence the data in question and would have to, in some form, pass
on the specific terms downstream. That is not only highly impractical,
but likely would cause a conflict with our contributor terms.

- the additional requirement to adhere to the AUS privacy regulations
was not addressed in the response, which in itself would be a killer.

As I pointed out on the legal talk mailing list, all of the above are
not issues for the usual suspects that offer proprietary data, google,
here, tomtom and so on, because they maintain tight control over their
downstream data users, but are a big issues for all projects that
produce open data and want to distribute their products on a unified
licence.

Simon



Am 11.07.2016 um 11:45 schrieb Andrew Davidson:

Is the problem CC 4.0 or is it the riders 

Re: [talk-au] CC 4.0 was Re: Response regarding use of PSMA Administrative Boundaries (Australia)

[Paul Norman]

On 7/12/2016 1:50 AM, Simon Poole wrote:

- the additional requirement to adhere to the AUS privacy regulations
was not addressed in the response, which in itself would be a killer.


It depends if it's part of the license or a reminder that in Australia 
there are other laws that may effect what you can do with the data.


If it's the former, the data is not available under CC BY 4.0 or an open 
license and they're falsely advertising that the data is available under 
an open license. If it's a reminder then it doesn't add any new 
requirements.


If they want it to be a reminder, I'd suggest wording like

Users are reminded that the Australian Privacy Principles under the 
Privacy Act 1988 (Cth) may impose additional restrictions on how they 
use the data.


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

Re: [talk-au] CC 4.0 was Re: Response regarding use of PSMA Administrative Boundaries (Australia)

[Paul Norman]

On 7/15/2016 7:15 PM, cleary wrote:

In regard to the Australian Privacy Principles, I think they have
responded to our concern. On this issue, the earlier response stated
very clearly that "We can also confirm that OpenStreetMap is not
responsible for the actions of your downstream users."


Users *must* be able to do anything permitted by the ODbL. If there is 
anything that a downstream user could do under the ODbL which would 
violates their license, we cannot include the data. Phrased differently, 
the downstream user only needs to follow the ODbL, not CC BY.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] CC 4.0 was Re: Response regarding use of PSMA Administrative Boundaries (Australia)

[cleary]

I have had further contact with the Spatial Unit at the Department of
Prime Minister and Cabinet regarding the incompatibility of CC-BY and
ODbL licences.  I acknowledged their previous response but asked
politely and respectfully whether it might be possible to review the
situation in the circumstances. An interim response has been received
that it is being looked at again. If we get another refusal, then I
think that is the final answer.

In regard to the Australian Privacy Principles, I think they have
responded to our concern. On this issue, the earlier response stated
very clearly that "We can also confirm that OpenStreetMap is not
responsible for the actions of your downstream users."

The Australian Privacy Principles outline how large  organisations must
handle, use and manage personal information. Section 6 of the Privacy
Act 1988, under which the Privacy Principles are issued, defines
"personal information " as "information or an opinion about an
identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable
.. "  To the best of my knowledge, OSM does not collect or use personal
information about identifiable individuals, except those of us who are
contributors to the map or wiki and, even then, minimal information is
held and I am not aware that OSM is in any danger of breaching the
Principles. Even so, I don't think OSMF has anywhere near the $3 million
annual turnover that would make it subject to the legal requirements of
the Principles.  Google and many other corporations operating in
Australia would however be bound by the Principles, are much more
involved in collecting data about individuals, and therefore may have
more to worry about.

Data from Government sources could also be accompanied by requirements
that data not be used to commit other offences either, such as murder or
robbery. If someone used a map to plan a murder or robbery, no court
would accept a defence that the mapmaker had contributed to the crime by
publishing the map. Same with the Privacy Principles. In my opinion, the
reason that specific attention is drawn to them is that they are a
relatively new concept and privacy issues are very topical at the
moment, whereas laws about murder and robbery are better known. Further
we have the assurance from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
that OSM is not responsible for the actions of downstream users.  I
don't think they could have made it any clearer.

At this stage, the discussion about Privacy Principles may be academic,
as we still await further consideration of the request for explicit
permission to use the PSMA data. If I get a favourable response, I will
submit it to the legal-talk list for their views, to make sure concerns
are addressed before we start including any data.





On Tue, Jul 12, 2016, at 06:50 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
> The issues are essentially:
> 
> - we did not receive special permission to distribute the data in OSM
> with attribution via the website. IMHO the permission we received for
> earlier versions boiled down to allowing us to sub-license on ODbL
> terms. This has now been implicitly denied. CC by 4.0 does have slightly
> looser attribution requirements than previous versions, and it has been
> argued that these could be fulfilled by attributing on the OSM website,
> however even if that would be possible it would mean that we couldn't
> sub-licence the data in question and would have to, in some form, pass
> on the specific terms downstream. That is not only highly impractical,
> but likely would cause a conflict with our contributor terms.
> 
> - the additional requirement to adhere to the AUS privacy regulations
> was not addressed in the response, which in itself would be a killer.
> 
> As I pointed out on the legal talk mailing list, all of the above are
> not issues for the usual suspects that offer proprietary data, google,
> here, tomtom and so on, because they maintain tight control over their
> downstream data users, but are a big issues for all projects that
> produce open data and want to distribute their products on a unified
> licence.
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> 
> Am 11.07.2016 um 11:45 schrieb Andrew Davidson:
> > Is the problem CC 4.0 or is it the riders that have been added? I'm
> > just wondering if this is a general problem with the other data sets
> > on data.gov.au.
> >
> > On 10/07/16 14:06, cleary wrote:
> >> Feedback from the legal-talk list is that the reply from the Department
> >> of Prime Minister and Cabinet is not sufficient and therefore we cannot
> >> use PSMA datasets in OSM.
> >>
> >
> > ___
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> Email had 1 attachment:
> + signature.asc
>   1k (application/pgp-signature)

Re: [talk-au] CC 4.0 was Re: Response regarding use of PSMA Administrative Boundaries (Australia)

[Simon Poole]

The issues are essentially:

- we did not receive special permission to distribute the data in OSM
with attribution via the website. IMHO the permission we received for
earlier versions boiled down to allowing us to sub-license on ODbL
terms. This has now been implicitly denied. CC by 4.0 does have slightly
looser attribution requirements than previous versions, and it has been
argued that these could be fulfilled by attributing on the OSM website,
however even if that would be possible it would mean that we couldn't
sub-licence the data in question and would have to, in some form, pass
on the specific terms downstream. That is not only highly impractical,
but likely would cause a conflict with our contributor terms.

- the additional requirement to adhere to the AUS privacy regulations
was not addressed in the response, which in itself would be a killer.

As I pointed out on the legal talk mailing list, all of the above are
not issues for the usual suspects that offer proprietary data, google,
here, tomtom and so on, because they maintain tight control over their
downstream data users, but are a big issues for all projects that
produce open data and want to distribute their products on a unified
licence.

Simon



Am 11.07.2016 um 11:45 schrieb Andrew Davidson:
> Is the problem CC 4.0 or is it the riders that have been added? I'm
> just wondering if this is a general problem with the other data sets
> on data.gov.au.
>
> On 10/07/16 14:06, cleary wrote:
>> Feedback from the legal-talk list is that the reply from the Department
>> of Prime Minister and Cabinet is not sufficient and therefore we cannot
>> use PSMA datasets in OSM.
>>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au





signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] CC 4.0 was Re: Response regarding use of PSMA Administrative Boundaries (Australia)

[cleary]

I am far from an expert and, like many others, I struggle to understand
all the nuances.  However, as I understand it, CC-BY-4.0 data can be
used only if we are given explicit permission to use it. We asked for
explicit permission and the request was declined.

We had previously been given explicit permission for CC-BY-2.5 and
CC-CY-3.0.

Thus it is my understanding that we can retain or add any old data that
was published under old licences and in accord with the permission
previously granted, but we cannot update with recent data as that comes
with a CC-BY-4.0 licence. 




On Mon, Jul 11, 2016, at 07:45 PM, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> Is the problem CC 4.0 or is it the riders that have been added? I'm just 
> wondering if this is a general problem with the other data sets on 
> data.gov.au.
> 
> On 10/07/16 14:06, cleary wrote:
> > Feedback from the legal-talk list is that the reply from the Department
> > of Prime Minister and Cabinet is not sufficient and therefore we cannot
> > use PSMA datasets in OSM.
> >
> 
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

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