> 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 of the Environment and Energy" and "Geoscience Australia" sections are now at the same level as the "data.gov.au" one. My intention was to clarify the permission granted from data.gov.au, no other section changes. This obviously is a living document so hopefully in the future we'll get permission from DNRM which can go under the Queensland section. Did I misunderstand your question? > Also is it really needed to redact all that DCDB stuff? That was imported back when we had permission right? I feel Ian's remark is a good one to follow (even thought he likely isn't a lawyer), but it appears those at the time (like Ian said) were acting in good faith with permission from a federal government agency. If DNRM send a take down I guess we'd have to redact it all even if other changes have been built on the data afterwards. I will remove my changes including DCDB contributions though because we did know at this time, and can now point people to this page in future. On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 7:54 PM Joel H. <joelh@cocaine.ninja> wrote: > 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+and+Resource+Management#values > https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=dcdb#values > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:02 PM Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote: > >> 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 is >> no evidence they had permission to grant us these rights at that point in >> time. Permission to use the following datasets in the future must be >> obtained directly from the copyright owner (2018-03-12). >> >> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:59 PM Ian Sergeant <inas66+...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> 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 government, about data owned by >>> another arm, and we relied on that in good faith. We stopped when we had >>> information suggesting anything to the contrary. >>> >>> Ian. >>> On 12 March 2018 at 17:41, Jonathon Rossi <j...@jonorossi.com> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 contributors shouldn't have to search the mailing list for this info. >>>> >>>> I've made the following addition to the wiki page: >>>> > The explicit permission granted by the data.gov.au team (operated by >>>> the Digital Transformation Agency) is no longer viewed as valid as there is >>>> no evidence they had permission to grant us these rights. Permission to use >>>> the following datasets at any time must be obtained directly from the >>>> copyright owner (2018-03-12). >>>> >>>> If this isn't appropriate, then I'm all ears. >>>> >>>> Thanks again guys even though this isn't the outcome we wanted. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:30 PM Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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 <j...@jonorossi.com> >>>>> 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/legal do we think >>>>>> this >>>>>> is now that we know DNRM's position on the matter who are the actual >>>>>> copyright owner. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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
