I am removing my changes that used LPI data .. I have no faith that the
data will remain available.
I would think that questions would be better placed here or sent to cleary.
The possibility that numerous people would contact LPI as participants
of OSM may lead LPI to see OSM as not worth engaging with due to the
'noise' that arises.
Hopefully the same will not occur with forth coming the Federal
Government release. And that wont be imagery but POI data so maybe seen
as less usefull.
On 7/12/2015 2:45 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
This conversation is quite scattered now but,
I've followed up with contact given in your letter (Diana Stewart)
with my concerns and questions. Specifically I've asked:
1. what does the statement "Where specific licence terms (such as
Creative Commons) are applied to datasets, those licence terms
shall prevail over any inconsistent provisions in this statement."
mean? Because we need these additional permissions from LPI beyond
the scope of the CC license to be legally binding so that we may
use LPI data within OpenStreetMap. We need this additional
permissions from LPI to prevail over the problematic clauses
within the CC license.
2. "To ensure consumers are informed of the currency and accuracy
of data, LPI asks that the date of extraction be marked in red."
This requirement is difficult to implement for us due to the way
we would like to use LPI data, furthermore if implemented it would
be misleading. If the OpenStreetMap community were to include LPI
data or derived data within OpenStreetMap then this would be an
ongoing adhoc inclusion of pieces of LPI data. As such, any
single statement intending to indicated data currency wouldn't be
accurate.
3. Could you please clarify that "on the 'Contributors' page of
OpenStreetMap" refers to
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australia and not
https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
I've asked this in the context of my pretext:
I am of the understanding that as it currently stands the Creative
Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode) isn't
compatible with the terms we (OpenStreetMap) need for inclusion of
such data or derived data in OpenStreetMap.
For example the above CC license in clauses 4A(b),4A(e),4B(a)
certain notices must be kept intact when we create new works
derived from your CC licensed LPI data. However, OpenStreetMap has
decided that this level of downstream attribution is too onerous
(so for example if OpenStreetMap included some data from LPI and a
3rd party web site includes an OpenStreetMap map, that website
shouldn't need to attribute LPI, rather they would only attribute
OpenStreetMap and in tern OpenStreetMap would attribute LPI).
Because of this, OpenStreetMap require specific explicit
permission from the copyright owner that such method of
attribution is acceptable since it is unclear if this is
acceptable under the plan CC BY 3.0 AU license.
Furthermore clause 4B(c) requires identification of changes made
to the original work. This isn't practical for OpenStreetMap so we
require that copyright holders grant us that we may simply state
something such as "in part derived from...".
I want to make sure that we have solid legal foundations for this, and
would like to run it by the legal-talk list first for advice.
_______________________________________________
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
