Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Mateusz Konieczny]

15 Sep 2019, 08:56 by graemefi...@gmail.com:
> QTOPO copyright > https://www.dnrme.qld.gov.au/home/legal/copyright 
> >  is listed as CC BY 4.0 
> & includes: "> Under this licence you are free to use this information in 
> accordance with the licence terms without having to seek permission from our 
> department."
>
> Would that be OK to use, or would we still need permission & waiver?
>
See https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ 


CC BY 4.0 requires waiver

The additional text is confirmation that it is
 actually released under this licence
and that personal confirmation is not required.___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Andrew Harvey]

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 18:05, Mateusz Konieczny 
wrote:

> See https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/
>
> CC BY 4.0 requires waiver
>
> The additional text is confirmation that it is
> actually released under this licence
> and that personal confirmation is not required.
>

Exactly.

I reached out to Greg Payne, Director of Land and Spatial Information,
Topographic Data, Imagery and Mapping, DNRM in December 2018 (in case
anything had changed since my prior correspondence), the reply was:

 The Department’s position has not changed since your previous enquiry.
>
> Consistent with Queensland Government policy, our data is provided under a
> CC:BY 4.0 Licence.  The department will not provide the data under an ODbl
> licence.  It is our belief that a CC:BY licence is sufficient for use of
> our data and we do not accept that OpenStreetMap cannot use our data under
> the CC:BY licence.


So unfortunately we're in a stalemate, OSMF says we need a waiver, DNRME
says they don't believe we need one. So we can't currently use DNRME's CC
BY 4.0 open data within OpenStreetMap unless either OSMF or DNRME change
their stance.

I'm not taking a stab at DNRME over this, they are free to no agree to the
waiver, it's their call.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 21:02, Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 18:05, Mateusz Konieczny 
> wrote:
>
>> See https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/
>>
>> CC BY 4.0 requires waiver
>>
>> The additional text is confirmation that it is
>> actually released under this licence
>> and that personal confirmation is not required.
>>
>
> Exactly.
>
> I reached out to Greg Payne, Director of Land and Spatial Information,
> Topographic Data, Imagery and Mapping, DNRM in December 2018 (in case
> anything had changed since my prior correspondence), the reply was:
>
>  The Department’s position has not changed since your previous enquiry.
>>
>> Consistent with Queensland Government policy, our data is provided under
>> a CC:BY 4.0 Licence.  The department will not provide the data under an
>> ODbl licence.  It is our belief that a CC:BY licence is sufficient for use
>> of our data and we do not accept that OpenStreetMap cannot use our data
>> under the CC:BY licence.
>
>
> So unfortunately we're in a stalemate, OSMF says we need a waiver, DNRME
> says they don't believe we need one. So we can't currently use DNRME's CC
> BY 4.0 open data within OpenStreetMap unless either OSMF or DNRME change
> their stance.
>
> I'm not taking a stab at DNRME over this, they are free to no agree to the
> waiver, it's their call.
>

Thanks both of you.

Exactly the same position with my on-going discussions with Gold Coast City
Council - they've given us explicit permission to use their data, but can't
get their head around our need for a waiver as well?

" unless ... OSMF ... change their stance" - any chance / likelihood of
that happening?

Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Andrew Harvey]

I don't think OSMF will change this requirement, as the reasons for the
waiver are detailed in the blog post Mateusz linked to,
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ are pretty
compelling.

There had been some hope that CC BY 4.0 sources would be directly
> compatible with the ODbL. But while neither CC nor the OSMF has undertaken
> a complete compatibility analysis, we have identified at least one  point
> of incompatibility and one possible challenge regarding attribution that
> lead us to our decision to continue to ask for explicit permission to use
> BY 4.0-licensed material in the OSM project. This is the best path forward.


 If you would like a second voice for your enquiry with Gold Coast, feel
free to loop me in.

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 07:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

>
> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 21:02, Andrew Harvey 
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 18:05, Mateusz Konieczny 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> See https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/
>>>
>>> CC BY 4.0 requires waiver
>>>
>>> The additional text is confirmation that it is
>>> actually released under this licence
>>> and that personal confirmation is not required.
>>>
>>
>> Exactly.
>>
>> I reached out to Greg Payne, Director of Land and Spatial Information,
>> Topographic Data, Imagery and Mapping, DNRM in December 2018 (in case
>> anything had changed since my prior correspondence), the reply was:
>>
>>  The Department’s position has not changed since your previous enquiry.
>>>
>>> Consistent with Queensland Government policy, our data is provided under
>>> a CC:BY 4.0 Licence.  The department will not provide the data under an
>>> ODbl licence.  It is our belief that a CC:BY licence is sufficient for use
>>> of our data and we do not accept that OpenStreetMap cannot use our data
>>> under the CC:BY licence.
>>
>>
>> So unfortunately we're in a stalemate, OSMF says we need a waiver, DNRME
>> says they don't believe we need one. So we can't currently use DNRME's CC
>> BY 4.0 open data within OpenStreetMap unless either OSMF or DNRME change
>> their stance.
>>
>> I'm not taking a stab at DNRME over this, they are free to no agree to
>> the waiver, it's their call.
>>
>
> Thanks both of you.
>
> Exactly the same position with my on-going discussions with Gold Coast
> City Council - they've given us explicit permission to use their data, but
> can't get their head around our need for a waiver as well?
>
> " unless ... OSMF ... change their stance" - any chance / likelihood of
> that happening?
>
> Thanks
>
> Graeme
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Greg Lauer]

Just so I am clear on this issue. We are not asking DERM to change the
current CC4 licence. We are asking DERM to give us formal permission to use
the data. This can be as simple as an email from a responsible party at
DERM giving us permission. Am I interpreting this correctly?

Greg

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:01 AM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I don't think OSMF will change this requirement, as the reasons for the
> waiver are detailed in the blog post Mateusz linked to,
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ are pretty
> compelling.
>
> There had been some hope that CC BY 4.0 sources would be directly
>> compatible with the ODbL. But while neither CC nor the OSMF has undertaken
>> a complete compatibility analysis, we have identified at least one  point
>> of incompatibility and one possible challenge regarding attribution that
>> lead us to our decision to continue to ask for explicit permission to use
>> BY 4.0-licensed material in the OSM project. This is the best path forward.
>
>
>  If you would like a second voice for your enquiry with Gold Coast, feel
> free to loop me in.
>
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 07:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 21:02, Andrew Harvey 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 18:05, Mateusz Konieczny 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 See https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/

 CC BY 4.0 requires waiver

 The additional text is confirmation that it is
 actually released under this licence
 and that personal confirmation is not required.

>>>
>>> Exactly.
>>>
>>> I reached out to Greg Payne, Director of Land and Spatial Information,
>>> Topographic Data, Imagery and Mapping, DNRM in December 2018 (in case
>>> anything had changed since my prior correspondence), the reply was:
>>>
>>>  The Department’s position has not changed since your previous enquiry.

 Consistent with Queensland Government policy, our data is provided
 under a CC:BY 4.0 Licence.  The department will not provide the data under
 an ODbl licence.  It is our belief that a CC:BY licence is sufficient for
 use of our data and we do not accept that OpenStreetMap cannot use our data
 under the CC:BY licence.
>>>
>>>
>>> So unfortunately we're in a stalemate, OSMF says we need a waiver, DNRME
>>> says they don't believe we need one. So we can't currently use DNRME's CC
>>> BY 4.0 open data within OpenStreetMap unless either OSMF or DNRME change
>>> their stance.
>>>
>>> I'm not taking a stab at DNRME over this, they are free to no agree to
>>> the waiver, it's their call.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks both of you.
>>
>> Exactly the same position with my on-going discussions with Gold Coast
>> City Council - they've given us explicit permission to use their data, but
>> can't get their head around our need for a waiver as well?
>>
>> " unless ... OSMF ... change their stance" - any chance / likelihood of
>> that happening?
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
> ___
> 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] QTOPO online maps

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:07, Greg Lauer  wrote:

> Just so I am clear on this issue. We are not asking DERM to change the
> current CC4 licence. We are asking DERM to give us formal permission to use
> the data. This can be as simple as an email from a responsible party at
> DERM giving us permission. Am I interpreting this correctly?
>

We're not asking for them to license the data under ODBL or any other
license, we're asking for a waiver which provides one exception and one
clarifications to their data released under CC BY to ensure compatibility
with the ODBL license and clarification on how OpenStreetMap provides
attribution (which based on a strict, not taking an chances, reading of the
CC BY 4.0 license, OSM's attribution may not be enough to satisfy CC BY
4.0). This is detailed at
https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/.

The waiver is the last page of
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3PN5zfbzThqeTdWR1l3SzJVcTg/view. DERM (or
whatever their abbreviation is these days) said they won't agree to the
waiver once, and then again a second time in Dec 2018.

All the other green departments from
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue were able to
agree.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Jonathon Rossi]

I agree that neither side is likely change their position.

Could we propose (to OSMF) new wording for an updated waiver that makes it
clearer, the attribution half doesn't seem like a problem, its the second
half which mentions ODbL even though the cover letter block explains it
they aren't signing that page. When we were communicating with DNRM early
last year they do appear to think that they need to relicense under the
ODbL, and I can now sort of see how the waiver could be read that way.

Waiver:
> [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license as to
OpenStreetMap and its
> users with the understanding that the Open Database License 1.0 requires
open access
> or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap

CCBY4 Clause:
> *No downstream restrictions*. You may not offer or impose any additional
or different
> terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures to,
the
> Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights
by any recipient
> of the Licensed Material.

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:16 AM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:07, Greg Lauer  wrote:
>
>> Just so I am clear on this issue. We are not asking DERM to change the
>> current CC4 licence. We are asking DERM to give us formal permission to use
>> the data. This can be as simple as an email from a responsible party at
>> DERM giving us permission. Am I interpreting this correctly?
>>
>
> We're not asking for them to license the data under ODBL or any other
> license, we're asking for a waiver which provides one exception and one
> clarifications to their data released under CC BY to ensure compatibility
> with the ODBL license and clarification on how OpenStreetMap provides
> attribution (which based on a strict, not taking an chances, reading of the
> CC BY 4.0 license, OSM's attribution may not be enough to satisfy CC BY
> 4.0). This is detailed at
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/.
>
> The waiver is the last page of
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3PN5zfbzThqeTdWR1l3SzJVcTg/view. DERM
> (or whatever their abbreviation is these days) said they won't agree to the
> waiver once, and then again a second time in Dec 2018.
>
> All the other green departments from
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_data_catalogue were able
> to agree.
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>

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

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:48, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:

> I agree that neither side is likely change their position.
>
> Could we propose (to OSMF) new wording for an updated waiver that makes it
> clearer, the attribution half doesn't seem like a problem, its the second
> half which mentions ODbL even though the cover letter block explains it
> they aren't signing that page. When we were communicating with DNRM early
> last year they do appear to think that they need to relicense under the
> ODbL, and I can now sort of see how the waiver could be read that way.
>

I think OSMF's blog post, the cover letter and the waiver form are very
clear. What changes would you propose?

I got the impression as well, especially with the reply "The department
will not provide the data under an ODbl licence." I did try to explain that
they don't need to relicense the data under ODbL and that we are just
asking for one exception to CC BY in order to be compatible with ODbL.


> Waiver:
> > [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license as to
> OpenStreetMap and its
> > users with the understanding that the Open Database License 1.0 requires
> open access
> > or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap
>
> CCBY4 Clause:
> > *No downstream restrictions*. You may not offer or impose any
> additional or different
> > terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures
> to, the
> > Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights
> by any recipient
> > of the Licensed Material.
>

That's it, as I understand it ODbL says you can provide data with these
technical restrictions so long as a parallel version is made available
without the technical restrictions. CC BY says you can't have any technical
restrictions, even if you make a parallel version without the technical
restrictions.

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

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

With regard to my ongoing issues with GCCC, the latest obstacle is because
there are 2 online versions of CC BY 3.0 - they apparently say the same
thing, but are formatted differently, which was enough to throw things into
utter confusion :-(

Their latest: "I need to engage our legal team to review the 2 different
versions/interpretations of the CC-BY3.0



This takes time and isn’t a high organisational priority but will be
addressed in due time."


Thanks

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

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Jonathon Rossi]

I guess lawyers don't want to authorise and public servants don't want to
sign anything that isn't written there, the reference material is all
useful and explains everything but that isn't on the signing page.

Maybe instead of this:
> [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license as to
OpenStreetMap and its
> users with the understanding that the Open Database License 1.0 requires
open access
> or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap

Something like this:
[Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license which prohibits
downstream restrictions preventing OpenStreetMap data under Open Database
License 1.0 to be distributed as a combined distribution containing CC BY
4.0 licensed data. CC BY 4.0 licensed data remains as such.

Could be improved more, but a start. Thoughts?

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:03 PM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:48, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:
>
>> I agree that neither side is likely change their position.
>>
>> Could we propose (to OSMF) new wording for an updated waiver that makes
>> it clearer, the attribution half doesn't seem like a problem, its the
>> second half which mentions ODbL even though the cover letter block explains
>> it they aren't signing that page. When we were communicating with DNRM
>> early last year they do appear to think that they need to relicense under
>> the ODbL, and I can now sort of see how the waiver could be read that way.
>>
>
> I think OSMF's blog post, the cover letter and the waiver form are very
> clear. What changes would you propose?
>
> I got the impression as well, especially with the reply "The department
> will not provide the data under an ODbl licence." I did try to explain that
> they don't need to relicense the data under ODbL and that we are just
> asking for one exception to CC BY in order to be compatible with ODbL.
>
>
>> Waiver:
>> > [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license as to
>> OpenStreetMap and its
>> > users with the understanding that the Open Database License 1.0
>> requires open access
>> > or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap
>>
>> CCBY4 Clause:
>> > *No downstream restrictions*. You may not offer or impose any
>> additional or different
>> > terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures
>> to, the
>> > Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights
>> by any recipient
>> > of the Licensed Material.
>>
>
> That's it, as I understand it ODbL says you can provide data with these
> technical restrictions so long as a parallel version is made available
> without the technical restrictions. CC BY says you can't have any technical
> restrictions, even if you make a parallel version without the technical
> restrictions.
>
>>

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

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 12:41, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
wrote:

> With regard to my ongoing issues with GCCC, the latest obstacle is because
> there are 2 online versions of CC BY 3.0 - they apparently say the same
> thing, but are formatted differently, which was enough to throw things into
> utter confusion :-(
>
> Their latest: "I need to engage our legal team to review the 2 different
> versions/interpretations of the CC-BY3.0
>
>
>
> This takes time and isn’t a high organisational priority but will be
> addressed in due time."
>

Yeah there is an us/international CC BY 3.0 and an Australian CC BY 3.0.
That's part of the reason I ask first if they have plans to upgrade to CC
BY 4.0 as it makes the waiver simpler, since the standard waiver template
from OSMF references international clause numbers, they are different in
the AU CC BY 3.0.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 12:43, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:

> I guess lawyers don't want to authorise and public servants don't want to
> sign anything that isn't written there, the reference material is all
> useful and explains everything but that isn't on the signing page.
>
> Maybe instead of this:
> > [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license as to
> OpenStreetMap and its
> > users with the understanding that the Open Database License 1.0 requires
> open access
> > or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap
>
> Something like this:
> [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license which
> prohibits downstream restrictions preventing OpenStreetMap data under Open
> Database License 1.0 to be distributed as a combined distribution
> containing CC BY 4.0 licensed data. CC BY 4.0 licensed data remains as
> such.
>
> Could be improved more, but a start. Thoughts?
>

I usually send both the cover letting which explains the why and the waiver
form which is the action, and top it off with an email that also summarises
the issue.

That said, I'd recommend passing feedback to the licensing working group as
they would need to sign off to any changes to the actual waiver form.

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

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Jonathon Rossi]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:00 PM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 12:43, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:
>
>> I guess lawyers don't want to authorise and public servants don't want to
>> sign anything that isn't written there, the reference material is all
>> useful and explains everything but that isn't on the signing page.
>>
>> Maybe instead of this:
>> > [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license as to
>> OpenStreetMap and its
>> > users with the understanding that the Open Database License 1.0
>> requires open access
>> > or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap
>>
>> Something like this:
>> [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license which
>> prohibits downstream restrictions preventing OpenStreetMap data under Open
>> Database License 1.0 to be distributed as a combined distribution
>> containing CC BY 4.0 licensed data. CC BY 4.0 licensed data remains as
>> such.
>>
>> Could be improved more, but a start. Thoughts?
>>
>
> I usually send both the cover letting which explains the why and the
> waiver form which is the action, and top it off with an email that also
> summarises the issue.
>
> That said, I'd recommend passing feedback to the licensing working group
> as they would need to sign off to any changes to the actual waiver form.
>
>>
I had considered providing feedback to the Licensing WG a while back on
this, but since I wasn't in contact with DNRM I don't think I had enough
information to justify to them that this might help get them across the
line. In your correspondence with Greg, do you know if he is responding or
someone on his behalf? Do you have any other information on why they might
be misunderstanding that their data needs to be relicensed for us to be
able to use it?

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

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 15:31, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:

> I had considered providing feedback to the Licensing WG a while back on
> this, but since I wasn't in contact with DNRM I don't think I had enough
> information to justify to them that this might help get them across the
> line. In your correspondence with Greg, do you know if he is responding or
> someone on his behalf?
>

I have no reason to think otherwise, but would it really matter...?


> Do you have any other information on why they might be misunderstanding
> that their data needs to be relicensed for us to be able to use it?
>

I don't. But to be fair, providing the exception for parallel distribution
could be considered re-licensing, I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure, but it
may be because of this they do see it as re-licensing.

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

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Jonathon Rossi]

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:55 PM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> I have no reason to think otherwise, but would it really matter...?
>

Was just wondering if some sort of department policy was written up to
handle likely multiple emails about this topic with a templated email
response, or if the decision was reviewed again with your last email.

I don't. But to be fair, providing the exception for parallel distribution
> could be considered re-licensing, I'm not a lawyer so I'm not sure, but it
> may be because of this they do see it as re-licensing.
>
>>
True, but that quote was that they wouldn't relicense under the ODbL. I
hadn't really thought about it as relicensing, but by definition removing a
clause would be a modified license. Interesting that heaps of other
agencies are granting OSM a modified license, obviously in addition to
everyone else getting it under CCBY4.

CCBY4 Clause:
>> > *No downstream restrictions*. You may not offer or impose any
>> additional or different
>> > terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological Measures
>> to, the
>> > Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the Licensed Rights
>> by any recipient
>> > of the Licensed Material.
>>
>
> That's it, as I understand it ODbL says you can provide data with these
> technical restrictions so long as a parallel version is made available
> without the technical restrictions. CC BY says you can't have any technical
> restrictions, even if you make a parallel version without the technical
> restrictions.
>
>>
The OSMF waiver asks for the licensor to allow copy protection on
derivative works. IANAL but am unclear which part of the CCBY4 clause
prevents copy protection on your derivative works if you in parallel
provided all CCBY4 "Licensed Material" unrestricted.

> [...] the Licensed Material *if doing so restricts* exercise of the
Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material

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

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Andrew Harvey]

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 18:07, Jonathon Rossi  wrote:

> True, but that quote was that they wouldn't relicense under the ODbL. I
> hadn't really thought about it as relicensing, but by definition removing a
> clause would be a modified license. Interesting that heaps of other
> agencies are granting OSM a modified license, obviously in addition to
> everyone else getting it under CCBY4.
>

I'm not sure.


> The OSMF waiver asks for the licensor to allow copy protection on
> derivative works. IANAL but am unclear which part of the CCBY4 clause
> prevents copy protection on your derivative works if you in parallel
> provided all CCBY4 "Licensed Material" unrestricted.
>
> > [...] the Licensed Material *if doing so restricts* exercise of the
> Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material
>

Yep that's the clause. You might get more of an answer on the legal-talk
mailing list. IANAL either so all we can do is abide by the current
guidance from the licensing working group.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Simon Poole]

The text in the waiver referencing the ODbL is there so that it is clear
that we are not proposing completely waiving the restrictions on DRM use
(though for produced works it does essentially amount to that, but not
for the data itself).

Why doesn't anybody else (outside of OSM) have an issue with the terms
that we are asking to be waived? Because they simply ignore them.

I have yet to see any data project proprietary, closed or open that
actually conveys this correctly to their users (CC BY 4.0 IMHO actually
rules out using so licensed data in closed projects). Given that the
department in question and the other distributors of data on CC BY terms
must be aware that the relevant terms are as a rule ignored, you would
think that giving a positive answer to an organisation that is so polite
to ask before using the data would just be a formality, but it seems not.

Simon

Am 16.09.2019 um 04:42 schrieb Jonathon Rossi:
> I guess lawyers don't want to authorise and public servants don't want
> to sign anything that isn't written there, the reference material is
> all useful and explains everything but that isn't on the signing page.
>
> Maybe instead of this:
> > [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license as to
> OpenStreetMap and its
> > users with the understanding that the Open Database License 1.0
> requires open access
> > or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap
>
> Something like this:
> [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license which
> prohibits downstream restrictions preventing OpenStreetMap data under
> Open Database License 1.0 to be distributed as a combined distribution
> containing CC BY 4.0 licensed data. CC BY 4.0 licensed data remains as
> such. 
>
> Could be improved more, but a start. Thoughts?
>
> On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:03 PM Andrew Harvey
> mailto:andrew.harv...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:48, Jonathon Rossi  > wrote:
>
> I agree that neither side is likely change their position.
>
> Could we propose (to OSMF) new wording for an updated waiver
> that makes it clearer, the attribution half doesn't seem like
> a problem, its the second half which mentions ODbL even though
> the cover letter block explains it they aren't signing that
> page. When we were communicating with DNRM early last year
> they do appear to think that they need to relicense under the
> ODbL, and I can now sort of see how the waiver could be read
> that way.
>
>
> I think OSMF's blog post, the cover letter and the waiver form are
> very clear. What changes would you propose?
>
> I got the impression as well, especially with the reply "The
> department will not provide the data under an ODbl licence." I did
> try to explain that they don't need to relicense the data under
> ODbL and that we are just asking for one exception to CC BY in
> order to be compatible with ODbL.
>
>
> Waiver:
> > [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license
> as to OpenStreetMap and its
> > users with the understanding that the Open Database License
> 1.0 requires open access
> > or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap
>
> CCBY4 Clause:
> > _No downstream restrictions_. You may not offer or impose
> any additional or different
> > terms or conditions on, or apply any Effective Technological
> Measures to, the
> > Licensed Material if doing so restricts exercise of the
> Licensed Rights by any recipient
> > of the Licensed Material.
>
>
> That's it, as I understand it ODbL says you can provide data with
> these technical restrictions so long as a parallel version is made
> available without the technical restrictions. CC BY says you can't
> have any technical restrictions, even if you make a parallel
> version without the technical restrictions.
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jono
>
> ___
> 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] QTOPO online maps

[Simon Poole]

It should really be clear from the blog post, but just to clarify: the
interpretation of the CC BY licences that we based our guidance on is
CCs reading of the licence and the result of discussion with CC, not
something that the LWG invented.

Simon


Am 16.09.2019 um 10:27 schrieb Andrew Harvey:
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 18:07, Jonathon Rossi  > wrote:
>
> True, but that quote was that they wouldn't relicense under the
> ODbL. I hadn't really thought about it as relicensing, but by
> definition removing a clause would be a modified license.
> Interesting that heaps of other agencies are granting OSM a
> modified license, obviously in addition to everyone else getting
> it under CCBY4.
>
>
> I'm not sure.
>  
>
> The OSMF waiver asks for the licensor to allow copy protection on
> derivative works. IANAL but am unclear which part of the CCBY4
> clause prevents copy protection on your derivative works if you in
> parallel provided all CCBY4 "Licensed Material" unrestricted.
>
> > [...] the Licensed Material *_if doing so restricts_* exercise
> of the Licensed Rights by any recipient of the Licensed Material
>
>
> Yep that's the clause. You might get more of an answer on the
> legal-talk mailing list. IANAL either so all we can do is abide by the
> current guidance from the licensing working group. 
>
> ___
> 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] QTOPO online maps

[Jonathon Rossi]

Thanks for jumping in Simon. Saves me digging through heaps of old threads.

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 6:53 PM Simon Poole  wrote:

> Why doesn't anybody else (outside of OSM) have an issue with the terms
> that we are asking to be waived? Because they simply ignore them.
>
> I have yet to see any data project proprietary, closed or open that
> actually conveys this correctly to their users (CC BY 4.0 IMHO actually
> rules out using so licensed data in closed projects). Given that the
> department in question and the other distributors of data on CC BY terms
> must be aware that the relevant terms are as a rule ignored, you would
> think that giving a positive answer to an organisation that is so polite to
> ask before using the data would just be a formality, but it seems not.
>
I now remember reading your comments on this in the past, and remember why
I also put DNRM in the too hard basket and just went back to mapping with
the resources we've got.

> It should really be clear from the blog post, but just to clarify: the
> interpretation of the CC BY licences that we based our guidance on is CCs
> reading of the licence and the result of discussion with CC, not something
> that the LWG invented.
>
I knew there was consultation but thanks for explicitly mentioning they
were completely involved during writing it. It is frustrating even
something like a CC license needs to be "interpreted" because it can be
read multiple ways.

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

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 18:54, Simon Poole  wrote:

> The text in the waiver referencing the ODbL is there so that it is clear
> that we are not proposing completely waiving the restrictions on DRM use
> (though for produced works it does essentially amount to that, but not for
> the data itself).
>
> Why doesn't anybody else (outside of OSM) have an issue with the terms
> that we are asking to be waived? Because they simply ignore them.
>
> I have yet to see any data project proprietary, closed or open that
> actually conveys this correctly to their users (CC BY 4.0 IMHO actually
> rules out using so licensed data in closed projects). Given that the
> department in question and the other distributors of data on CC BY terms
> must be aware that the relevant terms are as a rule ignored, you would
> think that giving a positive answer to an organisation that is so polite to
> ask before using the data would just be a formality, but it seems not.
>
Thanks for that explanation, Simon.

Maybe the request & waiver letter's could be modified to include a "simple
English" explanation of why we're asking, just like that, rather / in
addition, to the current legalese, because I think that a number of the
people saying no, just don't understand the question?

Thanks

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