Am 16.03.2018 um 15:02 schrieb Jonathon Rossi:
>
> Agreed, Australia isn't even mentioned. After looking for at the
> source of that page I now understand why no one edits it, crazy yaml
> and it's localised:
> https://github.com/openstreetmap/openstreetmap-website/blob/d2f7188d15b2614ce995530d55
> I spent a fair amount of time two years back reading all the publicly
available discussion leading up to 4.0, and a frequent statement in the
context was that "everybody ignores it anyway" (it == the DRM prohibition).
>
> We would still have the attribution problem, but that is, as this
discussio
I am the Michael Collinson mentioned by Simon, (hello Simon, it has been
a while!). I still lurk on this list and after a long gap will be
spending time in Australia each year. I am in Melbourne at the moment
and look forward to meeting mappers here on my hopefully less busy visit
later this ye
Am 14.03.2018 um 22:50 schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick:
>
>
> OK, a stupid, well & truly outside the box, thought here! :-)
>
> If we have discussions with CC, is there any possibility of getting
> them to write into CC BY 4.5 & following editions, that "by the
> Organisation agreeing to the terms of
Thanks mate - much nicerer! (at least for these tired old eyes) :-)
Good luck with your continuing efforts
Thanks
Graeme
On 14 March 2018 at 23:12, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> Hey Graeme,
>
> Really appreciate the feedback!
>
> > What does the black type for CC BY 4.0 eg QSpatial State Controlle
On 13 March 2018 at 19:47, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> * a small note on the side, when discussing ODbL and CC BY 4.0
> compatibility with Creative Commons, representatives of the organisation
> voiced the opinion that most of the rewrite was just clarification of
> terms that the previous versions co
Apologises, I missed that. BCC definitely seem one of the most progressive
Australian agencies surrounding open data so that should go well. Thanks
again for your work.
On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:37 PM Andrew Harvey
wrote:
> Oh I was referring to the Brisbane City Council data you mentioned not
Oh I was referring to the Brisbane City Council data you mentioned not
DNRM.
On 15 Mar. 2018 12:26 am, "Jonathon Rossi" wrote:
I'll reach out to them to see if we can get the waiver completed tomorrow,
> in the meantime I've added it too the list.
>
This isn't intended to sound rude, but why do
>
> I'll reach out to them to see if we can get the waiver completed tomorrow,
> in the meantime I've added it too the list.
>
This isn't intended to sound rude, but why do you think they would have a
different opinion on the CC BY 2.5 waiver and not just get the same
response Joel received?
It a
> I like the idea of getting a fresh agreement about attribution to
continue using the CC BY 2.5/3.0 licensed data, even if we cannot use the
CC BY 4.0 data today. I don't think it would be hard to get the rights
holder's okay that they are happy with our attribution of their data.
Agreed, that's
Am 14.03.2018 um 13:06 schrieb Jonathon Rossi:
> ...
>
> Could you please point me to a good resource that explains why CC BY
> 2.5 and 3.0 don't have the same problem with "technical protection
> measures" that we've got in the waivers because I'm obviously missing
> something. I've read the lic
>
> No, that was a deliberate attempt to take this discussion off-list as
> I'm not sure that there is much point in raking over old mistakes
> unless we are trying to learn from our mistakes.
>
I know at least I am learning a lot about the whole licensing area and from
these past mistakes here an
To give a bit more context and perhaps point out a way to resolve this
without every thing blowing up:
At the time the permission from data.gov.au was obtained, OSM was in the
final stages of the licence change. Normally the LWG wouldn't have
become directly involved at all in the matter of licens
On 13/03/18 17:16, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
I hope you don't mind me replying back on list and that it was just an
accident not CCing the list.
No, that was a deliberate attempt to take this discussion off-list as
I'm not sure that there is much point in raking over old mistakes unless
we are tr
I hope you don't mind me replying back on list and that it was just an
accident not CCing the list.
Your interpretation makes sense to me the way you explained it, I hadn't
noticed that detail. I assume you expect that if the data.gov.au team
really meant to include other non-Australian Government
On 13/3/18 10:32, Simon Poole wrote:
All that said, does data.gov.au actually have any geospatial datasets
anymore? Seems as if that has moved to http://www.nationalmap.gov.au
Yes. http://www.nationalmap.gov.au is a graphical frontend for data.gov.au.
__
>
> On 13/3/18 10:32, Simon Poole wrote:
> > you are assuming that
> > data.gov.au received the data from the states on the same terms as
> > everybody else, that really doesn't have to be so.
>
> What makes you think I'm assuming anything? To publish data on
> data.gov.au an organization has to re
> All that said, does data.gov.au actually have any geospatial
> datasets anymore? Seems as if that has moved to
> http://www.nationalmap.gov.au
For Queensland, all geospatial data is now available from:
http://qldspatial.information.qld.gov.au/
__
On 13/3/18 10:32, Simon Poole wrote:
you are assuming that
data.gov.au received the data from the states on the same terms as
everybody else, that really doesn't have to be so.
What makes you think I'm assuming anything? To publish data on
data.gov.au an organization has to register
(https://
On 12.03.2018 21:28, Andrew Davidson wrote:
> On 12/03/18 22:57, Simon Poole wrote:
>>
>> - has the DNRM explicitly made a statement on the validity of the
>> explicit permission from data.gov.au back then?
>
> All you need is a basic understanding of the Australian system of
> government. A fe
On 12/03/18 22:57, Simon Poole wrote:
- has the DNRM explicitly made a statement on the validity of the
explicit permission from data.gov.au back then?
All you need is a basic understanding of the Australian system of
government. A federal bureaucrat does not have the authority to make
de
make it a general “CC BY 4.0 vs ODbL” compatibility
waiver.
Cheers,
Thorsten
From: Jonathon Rossi
Sent: Monday, 12 March 2018 22:23
To: Simon Poole
Cc: talk-au@openstreetmap.org
Subject: Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback
Cheers Simon, that makes
Cheers Simon, that makes sense. I have to defer to those who have contacted
DNRM via private email whether DNRM have made any explicit remarks over the
previous permission. I was initially getting the feeling from some comments
that there was some legal evidence, but I've not seen anything. I guess
Am 12.03.2018 um 11:47 schrieb Jonathon Rossi:
> Sorry Simon, I really didn't intend to make things more complicated. I
> just wanted to ensure someone else doesn't get caught in the future
> after thinking I was doing the right thing, and no one else has done
> this each time this has come up in
Hey Joel, Jonathon, great to see your efforts to try to get this through.
As an aside I'm working on cataloguing Australian open data potentially
useful for OSM with the goal to get the OSMF waiver completed for them all.
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Catalogue
In cases whe
Sorry Simon, I really didn't intend to make things more complicated. I just
wanted to ensure someone else doesn't get caught in the future after
thinking I was doing the right thing, and no one else has done this each
time this has come up in the past.
I've made your suggested change to the page i
Am 12.03.2018 um 11:13 schrieb Simon Poole:
>
>
> Making clear that we don't the validity of the permission granted for
> the CC BY 2.5 datasets, but don't extend it to covering the current
> ones and avoid speculating on internal government arrangements way back.
>
That should have been:
.. tha
Please folks, don't try to a) make this more complicated than it already
is, b) try to undo stuff that is long done.
I would consider the wording change on the contributors page to be not a
good idea (or even factual), and would suggest that it be changed from
"The explicit permission granted by
> Have we necessarily exhausted all our options? I only ever asked DNRM, I
know of other dataset from different agencies which is also CC-BY 4.0.
This is also why I added a heading for the "data.gov.au" text, it was
sitting directly under the "Commonwealth of Australia" previously, the
"Department
Have we necessarily exhausted all our options? I only ever asked DNRM, I
know of other dataset from different agencies which is also CC-BY 4.0.
Also is it really needed to redact all that DCDB stuff? That was
imported back when we had permission right?
On 12/03/18 17:07, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
I'm glad you mentioned that Ian, because I started looking at what we'd
have to "redact" and it is very mixed up with data from DCDB and survey, so
we'd loose heaps.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=Natural+Resources+and+Mines#values
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=Environment
Thanks Ian, that makes sense, glad to get a few more people involved in
this discussion.
With the comment in mind I've amended the text to this for now:
> The explicit permission granted by the data.gov.au team (operated by the
Digital Transformation Agency) is no longer viewed as valid as there i
We need the right form of words. I completely agree we should not rely on
data.gov.au permission for any new datasets.
However, I'm not sure we want words that would give someone justification
to go down the redaction path for existing data sets. We were given
permission by one arm of the govern
Thanks Andrew, and thanks again for flagging my use a few months back.
Can we once and for all publicly note the "data.gov.au permission can of
worms", even if that is simply adding to the existing Contributions page
text noting exactly what everyone "in the know" knows about the problem,
OSM cont
Yeap, this has already been covered before:
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-March/011291.html
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> The CC-BY 2.5 attribution was granted by the data.gov.au team not DNRM
> (or a former named department), so how relevant
There is a bunch of very outdated info which I don't think is relevant to
this on the discussion/talk page on this too:
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Contributors#Australian_government_public_information_datasets
Is anyone familiar with the Licensing Working Group, should we defer this
It appears so, and they just have a boilerplate response to these types of
questions now.
Since we are stuck between DNRM and OSMF on CC-BY 4.0 (in no ill way) it
would be good to at least clear up the current position so others don't get
caught like me. The CC-BY 2.5 attribution was granted by th
Yeah pretty much, I interpret it as "We will not deviate from CC-BY 4.0".
On 12/03/18 14:37, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> Is that (second sentence) word for word the same response you got the
> first time, where they thought they'd have to relicense under the ODbL?
>
> P.S. sorry about not replying al
Is that (second sentence) word for word the same response you got the first
time, where they thought they'd have to relicense under the ODbL?
P.S. sorry about not replying all with my last email.
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Joel H. <95.5.ra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> OK everyone, Here is the fe
Joel,
Did you get a response from DNRM? Are you still in talks with them?
On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:07 PM Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> Great to hear Joel, I was actually wondering last night if you'd already
> sent this off.
>
> I'm not an expert in this area so happy for others to correct me, howev
Great to hear Joel, I was actually wondering last night if you'd already
sent this off.
I'm not an expert in this area so happy for others to correct me, however
my reading of your description of the second section that DNRM needs to
waive doesn't explain to someone not familiar with what we are r
Looks good to me.
Simon
Am 01.02.2018 um 12:08 schrieb Joel H.:
>
> Hi All! I have made a response to DNRM, regarding the licensing for
> locality boarders. Please give a critique before I send!
>
>
> /Hello [NAME],//
> //
> //Thank you for your time and consideration regarding the approval for
Hi All! I have made a response to DNRM, regarding the licensing for
locality boarders. Please give a critique before I send!
/Hello [NAME],//
//
//Thank you for your time and consideration regarding the approval for
OpenStreetMap.//
//
//As a response to your concern over the licence change,
43 matches
Mail list logo