Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

[Stewart C. Russell]

Hi Bjenk,

> Most participants here agree that open data initiatives exist so that
> we, the public, organizations including OSM, everyone can use the
> data.

The OSM project can't accept data that might have hidden licensing
issues that might jeopardize OSM's existence. All new licenses are
treated with extreme caution. From the Legal FAQ:

“XYZ Organisation has data for free download under licence N. Can I use
it in OSM?

Approach the data owners, explain OSM, and seek written permission to
licence their data under our licence and contributor terms.

Unless the data is genuinely offered without any restrictions on use at
all (i.e. public domain), please contact the Licensing Working Group for
advice. Do not rely on your own legal interpretation of the licence. OSM
is all about creating a freely and easily redistributable data set.
Anything which taints the dataset or exposes OSM to possible legal
action interferes with that objective.

Even if you only want to use a minor part, or compare the sources, you
should still seek approval in writing. The legal principles involved are
not well developed, and the OSM community wants to develop a free and
untainted dataset and not test any of the legal issues involved here.

In short: be ultra-cautious”



> With that said, It has not yet been clearly explained what are the
> issues nor the sources raising concerns. Many have asked for
> clarifications and these have not been presented.

These responses take time. We're all volunteers who do this for fun.
I've (just) requested clarification from the OSMF License Working group.
I don't know if anyone had before. To OSM, the Ottawa licence is
different from the Federal OGL, so it needs looked at.

 Stewart


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

[Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

[Bjenk Ellefsen]

Most participants here agree that open data initiatives exist so that we, the 
public, organizations including OSM, everyone can use the data.

With that said, It has not yet been clearly explained what are the issues nor 
the sources raising concerns. Many have asked for clarifications and these have 
not been presented.

Public servants at the City of Ottawa are supporting the project and OSM and so 
is StatCan, obviously.


Sent from my iPhone
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[Alan Richards]

Exactly. Local governments are using this license presumably because the
federal government has gone to the work of creating it. The intention of
all these bodies is to release the data for public use, the license is to
cover them from lawsuits.

In New West in fact, they are having an innovation week and hackathon in
February with the goal of hacking together interesting projects around the
Open Data the city releases. Sadly at the moment it seems I can't use this
data for OSM without getting explicit permission from the city.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:54 PM, James  wrote:

> The only differences I could see is with the province of quebec (OGL-QC),
> but they publish their data under CC-BY 4.0 so we just need to ask for
> their approval to mark refs on contributors page (indirect reference which
> CC-BY requires)
>
> I think it would be logical for other provinces(excluding Quebec, because
> they do their own thing) to follow what the federal goverment has put in
> place in terms of open data. Obviously they need to replace federal with
> municipal, but this shouldnt change the license in itself that allows us to
> copy, create, distribute and derive.
>
> If cities are putting their data on public portals it's obviously so the
> public will use it, instead of it sitting there doing nothing.
>
>
> On Jan 25, 2017 3:30 PM, "john whelan"  wrote:
>
>> I'm under the impression that we are talking about two things.
>>
>> The first is the Open Data licence which I think we are agreed is roughly
>> the same except that BC governments reference the BC privacy law, the
>> Ontario ones the Ontario privacy law and the Federal Government references
>> the Federal Government privacy law which is what you might expect.
>>
>> The differences to me are minor.
>>
>> The second is Paul's letter from a Federal Government civil servant that
>> I shall call a letter of interpretation, and it's this letter that makes
>> Paul very comfortable with the Federal Government Open Data.
>>
>> Unfortunately we have been talking licence so the assumption was made
>> that the BC government /Vancouver Open Data licence was also acceptable and
>> my understanding is some data has been imported and accepted.
>>
>> I do not believe the differences between the BC and Ontario privacy laws
>> are that great that one is acceptable and one is not.
>>
>> If all the Canadian Open Data licences are deemed to be unacceptable what
>> do we do about the data that has been imported?  This includes the CANVEC
>> data.
>>
>> My interest is in the Ottawa Bus stops and I have been working with the
>> City of Ottawa for some years to make them available off line on a tablet /
>> phone.  Somewhere in the City of Ottawa's official web site is a link to
>> this work.  My concern is what will tomorrow bring.  Based on the
>> discussions in talk-ca and on the work done analyzing the Federal
>> Government's Open Data licence before the Metro link address import my
>> impression was we had accepted the Canadian version of the Open Data
>> licence.  These Ottawa Bus stops are now based on OSM data and have been
>> since the discussion on talk-ca last year.
>>
>> Are we seriously saying the data that Metrolink imported should now be
>> removed?
>>
>> The uncertainty, the on / off on acceptence of the Open Data side of
>> things does make life difficult.  Should we be using a different platform
>> for Open Data?
>>
>> If I sidetrack to the Ottawa import process essentially the building
>> outlines are brought into a JOSM layer then using the Bing image layer to
>> confirm they are brought into OSM manually.  My understanding is any
>> building outlines that clash with an existing building in OSM daily dump
>> have been removed from the import file.  Any added in the previous 24 hours
>> can be handled by the manual process.  This is quite different to an
>> earlier import.
>>
>> Thoughts and clarification please.
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Cheerio John
>>
>> On 25 Jan 2017 2:43 pm, "Alan Richards"  wrote:
>>
>>> Most BC cities seem to be using a version of the OGL-BC now as well.
>>> This is similar to the OGL-CA with references to BC privacy and FOI laws,
>>> similar to the Ontario changes mentioned earlier.
>>>
>>> This business of having to get explicit permission for each dataset from
>>> each government entity is a bit ridiculous when the intent of this license
>>> in the first place was to avoid this.
>>>
>>> Alan
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Blake Girardot 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:

 > The initial answer was that the license would impose obligations on
 top of
 > the ODbL, our distribution license. This would make the data
 incompatible.

 Hi Paul,

 The above sounds like an interpretation of the answer, not the actual
 answer itself.

 Could you share the 

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[James]

The only differences I could see is with the province of quebec (OGL-QC),
but they publish their data under CC-BY 4.0 so we just need to ask for
their approval to mark refs on contributors page (indirect reference which
CC-BY requires)

I think it would be logical for other provinces(excluding Quebec, because
they do their own thing) to follow what the federal goverment has put in
place in terms of open data. Obviously they need to replace federal with
municipal, but this shouldnt change the license in itself that allows us to
copy, create, distribute and derive.

If cities are putting their data on public portals it's obviously so the
public will use it, instead of it sitting there doing nothing.


On Jan 25, 2017 3:30 PM, "john whelan"  wrote:

> I'm under the impression that we are talking about two things.
>
> The first is the Open Data licence which I think we are agreed is roughly
> the same except that BC governments reference the BC privacy law, the
> Ontario ones the Ontario privacy law and the Federal Government references
> the Federal Government privacy law which is what you might expect.
>
> The differences to me are minor.
>
> The second is Paul's letter from a Federal Government civil servant that I
> shall call a letter of interpretation, and it's this letter that makes Paul
> very comfortable with the Federal Government Open Data.
>
> Unfortunately we have been talking licence so the assumption was made that
> the BC government /Vancouver Open Data licence was also acceptable and my
> understanding is some data has been imported and accepted.
>
> I do not believe the differences between the BC and Ontario privacy laws
> are that great that one is acceptable and one is not.
>
> If all the Canadian Open Data licences are deemed to be unacceptable what
> do we do about the data that has been imported?  This includes the CANVEC
> data.
>
> My interest is in the Ottawa Bus stops and I have been working with the
> City of Ottawa for some years to make them available off line on a tablet /
> phone.  Somewhere in the City of Ottawa's official web site is a link to
> this work.  My concern is what will tomorrow bring.  Based on the
> discussions in talk-ca and on the work done analyzing the Federal
> Government's Open Data licence before the Metro link address import my
> impression was we had accepted the Canadian version of the Open Data
> licence.  These Ottawa Bus stops are now based on OSM data and have been
> since the discussion on talk-ca last year.
>
> Are we seriously saying the data that Metrolink imported should now be
> removed?
>
> The uncertainty, the on / off on acceptence of the Open Data side of
> things does make life difficult.  Should we be using a different platform
> for Open Data?
>
> If I sidetrack to the Ottawa import process essentially the building
> outlines are brought into a JOSM layer then using the Bing image layer to
> confirm they are brought into OSM manually.  My understanding is any
> building outlines that clash with an existing building in OSM daily dump
> have been removed from the import file.  Any added in the previous 24 hours
> can be handled by the manual process.  This is quite different to an
> earlier import.
>
> Thoughts and clarification please.
>
> Thanks
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 25 Jan 2017 2:43 pm, "Alan Richards"  wrote:
>
>> Most BC cities seem to be using a version of the OGL-BC now as well. This
>> is similar to the OGL-CA with references to BC privacy and FOI laws,
>> similar to the Ontario changes mentioned earlier.
>>
>> This business of having to get explicit permission for each dataset from
>> each government entity is a bit ridiculous when the intent of this license
>> in the first place was to avoid this.
>>
>> Alan
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Blake Girardot 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:
>>>
>>> > The initial answer was that the license would impose obligations on
>>> top of
>>> > the ODbL, our distribution license. This would make the data
>>> incompatible.
>>>
>>> Hi Paul,
>>>
>>> The above sounds like an interpretation of the answer, not the actual
>>> answer itself.
>>>
>>> Could you share the actual inquiry and response so we can all learn
>>> from it and understand how it requires additional obligations?
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> blake
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 
>>> Blake Girardot
>>> HOTOSM Member - https://hotosm.org/users/blake_girardot
>>> skype: jblakegirardot
>>> Live OSM Mapper-Support channel - https://hotosm-slack.herokuapp.com/
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> 

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[john whelan]

I'm under the impression that we are talking about two things.

The first is the Open Data licence which I think we are agreed is roughly
the same except that BC governments reference the BC privacy law, the
Ontario ones the Ontario privacy law and the Federal Government references
the Federal Government privacy law which is what you might expect.

The differences to me are minor.

The second is Paul's letter from a Federal Government civil servant that I
shall call a letter of interpretation, and it's this letter that makes Paul
very comfortable with the Federal Government Open Data.

Unfortunately we have been talking licence so the assumption was made that
the BC government /Vancouver Open Data licence was also acceptable and my
understanding is some data has been imported and accepted.

I do not believe the differences between the BC and Ontario privacy laws
are that great that one is acceptable and one is not.

If all the Canadian Open Data licences are deemed to be unacceptable what
do we do about the data that has been imported?  This includes the CANVEC
data.

My interest is in the Ottawa Bus stops and I have been working with the
City of Ottawa for some years to make them available off line on a tablet /
phone.  Somewhere in the City of Ottawa's official web site is a link to
this work.  My concern is what will tomorrow bring.  Based on the
discussions in talk-ca and on the work done analyzing the Federal
Government's Open Data licence before the Metro link address import my
impression was we had accepted the Canadian version of the Open Data
licence.  These Ottawa Bus stops are now based on OSM data and have been
since the discussion on talk-ca last year.

Are we seriously saying the data that Metrolink imported should now be
removed?

The uncertainty, the on / off on acceptence of the Open Data side of things
does make life difficult.  Should we be using a different platform for Open
Data?

If I sidetrack to the Ottawa import process essentially the building
outlines are brought into a JOSM layer then using the Bing image layer to
confirm they are brought into OSM manually.  My understanding is any
building outlines that clash with an existing building in OSM daily dump
have been removed from the import file.  Any added in the previous 24 hours
can be handled by the manual process.  This is quite different to an
earlier import.

Thoughts and clarification please.

Thanks

Cheerio John

On 25 Jan 2017 2:43 pm, "Alan Richards"  wrote:

> Most BC cities seem to be using a version of the OGL-BC now as well. This
> is similar to the OGL-CA with references to BC privacy and FOI laws,
> similar to the Ontario changes mentioned earlier.
>
> This business of having to get explicit permission for each dataset from
> each government entity is a bit ridiculous when the intent of this license
> in the first place was to avoid this.
>
> Alan
>
> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Blake Girardot 
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:
>>
>> > The initial answer was that the license would impose obligations on top
>> of
>> > the ODbL, our distribution license. This would make the data
>> incompatible.
>>
>> Hi Paul,
>>
>> The above sounds like an interpretation of the answer, not the actual
>> answer itself.
>>
>> Could you share the actual inquiry and response so we can all learn
>> from it and understand how it requires additional obligations?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> blake
>>
>>
>> --
>> 
>> Blake Girardot
>> HOTOSM Member - https://hotosm.org/users/blake_girardot
>> skype: jblakegirardot
>> Live OSM Mapper-Support channel - https://hotosm-slack.herokuapp.com/
>>
>> ___
>> Talk-ca mailing list
>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[Alan Richards]

Most BC cities seem to be using a version of the OGL-BC now as well. This
is similar to the OGL-CA with references to BC privacy and FOI laws,
similar to the Ontario changes mentioned earlier.

This business of having to get explicit permission for each dataset from
each government entity is a bit ridiculous when the intent of this license
in the first place was to avoid this.

Alan

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Blake Girardot  wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:
>
> > The initial answer was that the license would impose obligations on top
> of
> > the ODbL, our distribution license. This would make the data
> incompatible.
>
> Hi Paul,
>
> The above sounds like an interpretation of the answer, not the actual
> answer itself.
>
> Could you share the actual inquiry and response so we can all learn
> from it and understand how it requires additional obligations?
>
> Cheers,
> blake
>
>
> --
> 
> Blake Girardot
> HOTOSM Member - https://hotosm.org/users/blake_girardot
> skype: jblakegirardot
> Live OSM Mapper-Support channel - https://hotosm-slack.herokuapp.com/
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[Blake Girardot]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 2:38 AM, Paul Norman  wrote:

> The initial answer was that the license would impose obligations on top of
> the ODbL, our distribution license. This would make the data incompatible.

Hi Paul,

The above sounds like an interpretation of the answer, not the actual
answer itself.

Could you share the actual inquiry and response so we can all learn
from it and understand how it requires additional obligations?

Cheers,
blake


-- 

Blake Girardot
HOTOSM Member - https://hotosm.org/users/blake_girardot
skype: jblakegirardot
Live OSM Mapper-Support channel - https://hotosm-slack.herokuapp.com/

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing buildings with Statistics Canada

[John Marshall]

Paul,

The City add the the building footprints to their open data portal in order
to have it add to OSM.

Also the City of Ottawa uses OSM: http://data.ottawa.ca/dataset
/sledding-hills

Ottawa Hydro which is owned by the City uses OSM. https://hydroottawa
.com/outages/info/outage-centre


Let's move on.


John

On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 9:12 PM, James  wrote:

> The city of Ottawa has the same license as the city of Vancouver:
> http://vancouver.ca/your-government/open-data-catalogue.aspx#tab19099
>
> Which seemed to have been deemed compatible, must we revert all vancouver
> imports as well?
>
> You have even stated that OGL-CA is compatible with ODBL in this mail
> archive:
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2013-
> December/007685.html
>
> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:58 PM, James  wrote:
>
>> Paul your answer is not clear. what is it that the license(ODL i'm
>> guessing?) would impose on top of ODBL?
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 24, 2017 at 8:52 PM, john whelan 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> So since it is the same license as the Feds which you have a letter of
>>> interpretation saying its fine with the exception of the Ontario Privacy
>>> laws does that mean the fed license is to be written off as well?
>>>
>>> Pity as I like my bus stops and CANVEC highways.
>>>
>>> Cheerio John
>>>
>>> On 24 January 2017 at 20:38, Paul Norman  wrote:
>>>
 On 1/21/2017 3:11 PM, Paul Norman wrote:

 On 1/20/2017 5:33 PM, john whelan wrote:

 Did you include permission for the bus stops as well? They are from the
 same source and the same licence.  I think I might have included one pitch
 sport soccer.  The pitch was mapped but the sport soccer was I must confess
 taken from their open data source.


 I kept it generic, not specifying a particular dataset. That way we'll
 have a final answer one way or the other and won't have to go back to them
 all the time.


 The initial answer was that the license would impose obligations on top
 of the ODbL, our distribution license. This would make the data
 incompatible.

 I have gotten back to them with some additional questions which might
 offer a way forwards and clarify the problems. If I can't get anywhere
 we'll have to decide what to do, but it will probably mean we can write off
 the City of Ottawa as a potential data source.

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


>>>
>>> ___
>>> Talk-ca mailing list
>>> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 外に遊びに行こう！
>>
>
>
>
> --
> 外に遊びに行こう！
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca