There is a bunch of very outdated info which I don't think is relevant to this on the discussion/talk page on this too: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 to them and request they edit the Contributions page? https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licensing_Working_Group On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote: > 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 the data.gov.au > team not DNRM (or a former named department), so how relevant/legal do we > think this is now that we know DNRM's position on the matter who are the > actual copyright owner. > > > [...] We have also been given explicit permission to incorporate and > publish such CC-BY licensed geographic coordinate datasets under a free and > open license, including the Open Database License, provided that primary > attribution is made here and that each dataset used is also listed here in > the format Dataset Name, Date Published, License, Agency Name, originally > retrieved from http://data.australia.gov.au: > > [...] > > Property Boundaries Annual Extract Queensland (Lite DCDB), unknown > publication date, CC-BY 2.5 Australia, Queensland Department of Environment > and Resource Management, originally retrieved from http://data.gov.au/152 > (Archived) > ( > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Commonwealth_of_Australia > ) > > > Contains data from Australian government public information datasets. > The original datasets are available from the Australian government data > website under Creative Commons - Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC-BY) and > Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC-BY). We have also been > given explicit permission to incorporate and publish such CC-BY licensed > geographic coordinate datasets under a free and open license, including the > Open Database License, provided that primary attribution is made here and > that each dataset used is also listed here in the format Dataset Name, Date > Published, License, Agency Name, originally retrieved from > http://data.australia.gov.au > ( > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission > ) > > Even if we got an older copy of the data (which would still be very > useful), we still need explicit permission to use this CC-BY 2.5 data > according to OSMF: > > > Both the 2.0 and 3.0 versions of the CC BY (Creative Commons > Attribution) licence have been popular with government and other sources > for a long time. Due to differences between CC BY and the ODbL with respect > to attribution, the LWG (OSMF Licence/Legal Working Group) has always > required explicit permission from licensors to use such data in > OpenStreetMap and attribute by adding an entry to our attribution pages on > our central websites. > (https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/) > > IANAL, but now that we know officially that DNRM won't give it to us on > CC-BY 4.0 data they most likely wouldn't give us that permission on the > CC-BY 2.x/3.x data either today, we should make changes to the > contributions page to reflect that DNRM has not given us permission to > incorporate their data. I'm going to revert my recent changes earlier this > year which were flagged, but it also means if we come across imported data > from the DCDB which there is some I've seen attributed to it, then we > should remove it and replace it with something we can derive from another > source. > > Jono > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:40 PM Joel H. <joelh@cocaine.ninja> wrote: > >> 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 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 feedback I got after asking for permission to >>> use CC-BY 4.0 datasets: >>> >>> Thank you for your enquiry regarding use of the localities boundaries >>> dataset in OpenStreetMap. >>> The Department has given consideration to your request and advise that, >>> 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 Open >>> Database licence. It is our belief that a CC:BY licence is sufficient for >>> use of our data >>> >>> >>> On 12/03/18 14:27, Jonathon Rossi wrote: >>> >>> Could you please share their response or paraphrase it so we can all >>> understand their reasons. >>> >>> Thanks, Jono >>> >>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:24 PM Joel H. <95.5.ra...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I tried again, and got rejected again. I had contact with someone >>>> behind a local GIS company who said he would try to help. But I haven't >>>> heard back. So I've put it to rest for now... >>>> >>>> I guess we should advocate for more compatibility with CC-BY 4.0 in our >>>> licence. >>>> >>>> On 12/03/18 13:35, Jonathon Rossi wrote: >>>> >>>> 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 <j...@jonorossi.com> >>>> 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, >>>>> 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 >>>>> requesting, I think DNRM staff are likely to think this is still too hard >>>>> and push back yet again. I like Andrew Harvey's description here >>>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/df/NSW_GNB_170427_OpenStreetMap.pdf> >>>>> of both sections including the extended part of section 2, maybe he will >>>>> give permission to use his description. >>>>> >>>>> Regarding who has signed the waiver: >>>>> - According to the contributors page for BCC >>>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.brisbane.qld.gov.au_explicit_permission> >>>>> it >>>>> appears they haven't signed the waiver because it didn't exist until early >>>>> 2017 but it appears they gave explicit permission to incorporate and >>>>> publish their CC-BY data under an ODbL, more than the waiver requires >>>>> - The explicit permission from NSW Land and Property Information >>>>> sounds the same as the BCC one giving more permission than OSMF now needs >>>>> - The NSW Geographical Name Register have signed the waiver >>>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/df/NSW_GNB_170427_OpenStreetMap.pdf> >>>>> - Victoria DELWP have signed the waiver >>>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/e/ed/Vicmap_CCBYPermission_OSM_Final_Jan2018_Ltr.pdf> >>>>> - SA and MRWA seem to have explicitly agreed with the same sort of >>>>> thing BCC and NSW LPI did >>>>> >>>>> I don't know if there was some sort of informal/old waiver or explicit >>>>> permission template because the older ones are pretty similar, they >>>>> obviously aren't explicit about Section 2(a)(5)(B) though. If that is the >>>>> case I'd amend your list of who has signed the waiver, maybe even consider >>>>> linking to the NSW GNR and Victoria DELWP signed waivers proving the >>>>> claim. >>>>> >>>>> Hope that helps, Jono >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:09 PM Joel H. <95.5.ra...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> 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, it isn’t >>>>>> necessary for DNRM data to be re-licenced as a result of usage in >>>>>> OpenStreetMap. It’s simply about signing a waiver to clarify minor >>>>>> differences in licences. Approving usage in OSM shouldn’t tamper with the >>>>>> goals of DNRM since OSM uses a very similar licence with many of the same >>>>>> philosophical views.* >>>>>> >>>>>> *The first part that needs approval is whether or not you think our >>>>>> method of Attribution, is sufficient with the “reasonable manner” >>>>>> requirement of the CC-BY 4.0. We credit sources through the following >>>>>> page: >>>>>> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors >>>>>> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors>, It’s also possible to >>>>>> add sources to the objects which are DNRM’s data.* >>>>>> >>>>>> *The second is to waive 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 data.* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Many organisations such as Brisbane City Council and New South Wales >>>>>> Land and Property Information, have already given permission in the same >>>>>> way that DNRM could.* >>>>>> >>>>>> *I hope you take the time to reconsider. I’ve attached the PDF that >>>>>> is needed for your review, keep in touch.* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> *Joel Hansen* >>>>>> *Local OpenStreetMap Editor* >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>>> 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
