Richard Weait wrote:
> Dear Talk-au,
>
> The License Working Group have had further communication with
> data.au.gov to confirm their position on permitting data.au.gov data
> in OpenStreetMap. data.au.gov have reviewed the Australian section of
> the attribution page
>
> http://wiki.openstreet
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Sam Couter wrote:
>
> Richard, is it possible to simply forward the communications you have
> from data.gov.au to this list, or otherwise make them publically
> available? That should put the matter to rest one way or another.
>
+1. Surely forwarding the emails i
Liz wrote:
> The answer from AGIMO (data.gov.au) will actually be irrelevant.
I was hoping that the original communications would make clear exactly
how relevant they are. At the moment we're all just guessing.
--
Sam Couter | mailto:s...@couter.id.au
OpenPGP fingerprint: A46B 9BB5 31
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 19:51, waldo000...@gmail.com
wrote:
> +1. Surely forwarding the emails is less work for you anyway than
> "transcribing" parts of the emails (?!).
Did you consider why forwarding the full emails might be less than
wise? - I have, and will share my thoughts:
a number of peo
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Chris Barham wrote:
>
> ...
> Making the licence negotiation details public could hand to those who
> do not have good intentions towards OSM, potential tools to try and
> damage the project.
Wow. If this is true, then the situation is worse than I thought. Is
the
On 31 October 2011 20:12, Chris Barham wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 19:51, waldo000...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > +1. Surely forwarding the emails is less work for you anyway than
> > "transcribing" parts of the emails (?!).
>
> Did you consider why forwarding the full emails might be less than
On 31 October 2011 14:44, Richard Weait wrote:
> Are you suggesting that data.gov.au aren't aware of their own license
> terms or that they are acting outside of their terms? What evidence
> to you provide to support your accusations?
A non-trivial amount of data is listed as crown copyright or
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:44:13 -0400
Richard Weait wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Liz wrote:
>
> > As we are trying to tell you, AGIMO, who owns the "data.gov.au"
> > domain, does not grant any copyright permissions whatsoever. They
> > are a place which consolidates data and makes it
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:34:48 +1100
Sam Couter wrote:
> Richard Weait wrote:
> > Dear Talk-au,
> >
> > The License Working Group have had further communication with
> > data.au.gov to confirm their position on permitting data.au.gov data
> > in OpenStreetMap. data.au.gov have reviewed the Austr
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:39 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Grant Slater <
> openstreet...@firefishy.com> wrote:
>
>> On 27 September 2011 12:09, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Thank you, Andrew.
>> >
>> > I wonder if Grant received a similar answer
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Grant Slater
wrote:
> [personal comments redacted]
>
> / Grant
>
> Grant
You forgot to cc the lists.
Could you please, for about the fifth time of asking, publish a verbatim
copy the permission that you have received. If you have some reason that
you can't then
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Sam Couter wrote:
> Liz wrote:
> > The answer from AGIMO (data.gov.au) will actually be irrelevant.
>
> I was hoping that the original communications would make clear exactly
> how relevant they are. At the moment we're all just guessing.
>
> Based on the reply
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Chris Barham wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 19:51, waldo000...@gmail.com
> wrote:
> > +1. Surely forwarding the emails is less work for you anyway than
> > "transcribing" parts of the emails (?!).
>
> Did you consider why forwarding the full emails might be le
On 31 October 2011 11:18, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Sam Couter wrote:
>>
>> Liz wrote:
>> > The answer from AGIMO (data.gov.au) will actually be irrelevant.
>>
>> I was hoping that the original communications would make clear exactly
>> how relevant they ar
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Grant Slater
wrote:
> 80n you are not a member of the Australian community. You are here to
> cause trouble and discontent within the Australian community along
> with your forking friends
Dear Grant,
Please continue to offer 80n the presumption of good faith t
Let us bring back our presumption of good faith, shall we? Several
posters here have suggested that data.gov.au don't know what
permissions they have and what permissions they may grant. Another
has suggested that data.gov.au would be likely to pay attention to
every last detail of paperwork, and
Would AU contributors please have a look at the Import Catalogue[1].
There are still some imports listed for Australia with incomplete
details. It would be good to have those details completed.
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue
__
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
>
> After long email correspondence data.gov.au have viewed the
> text of the attribution page[1] and they find it "terrific".
>
> [1]
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets
Hi. I ha
Could you please, for about the fifth time of asking, publish a verbatim
copy the permission that you have received. If you have some reason that
you can't then you need to explain yourself.
80n
??
A verbatim copy of the permission that we have received is here:
http://wiki.openstreetmap.or
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Michael Collinson wrote:
>
> 1) I generally take "yes" to mean "yes" rather than looking for reasons why
> it should mean no.
Just so you know, this kind of statement may be interpreted by some as
"go away, don't ask for details, I don't care if you have concerns,
True, but that doesn't mean we need to use it. When they actually
bother to give the SI unit a name, I'll think about using it. In the
meantime, the named metric unit of volume is the litre (L), and you
can use it with all the prefixes, including KL (or cubic metre), ML
etc. The prefixes don't r
21 matches
Mail list logo
