I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
43 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Satuim

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, 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

SimonPoole

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 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, 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Jonathon Rossi
In reply to this post by Satuim
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 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 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
- Victoria DELWP have signed the waiver
- 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. <[hidden email]> 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, 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Jonathon Rossi
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 <[hidden email]> 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 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 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
- Victoria DELWP have signed the waiver
- 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. <[hidden email]> 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, 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Jonathon Rossi
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. <[hidden email]> 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. <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 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 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
- Victoria DELWP have signed the waiver
- 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. <[hidden email]> 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, 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au





--
Jono

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Joel H.

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. <[hidden email]> 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. <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 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 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
- Victoria DELWP have signed the waiver
- 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. <[hidden email]> 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, 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au





--
Jono


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Jonathon Rossi
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)

> 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

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.

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. <[hidden email]> 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. <[hidden email]> 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. <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 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 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
- Victoria DELWP have signed the waiver
- 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. <[hidden email]> 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, 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au





--
Jono


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Jonathon Rossi
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:

Is anyone familiar with the Licensing Working Group, should we defer this to them and request they edit the Contributions page?

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM Jonathon Rossi <[hidden email]> 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)

> 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

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.

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. <[hidden email]> 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. <[hidden email]> 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. <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 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 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
- Victoria DELWP have signed the waiver
- 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. <[hidden email]> 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, 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au





--
Jono


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Andrew Davidson-3
In reply to this post by Jonathon Rossi
Yeap, this has already been covered before:


On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jonathon Rossi <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Jonathon Rossi
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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jonathon Rossi <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Ian Sergeant-2
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jonathon Rossi <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Jonathon Rossi
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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jonathon Rossi <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Jonathon Rossi
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=dcdb#values

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:02 PM Jonathon Rossi <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jonathon Rossi <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Joel H.

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=dcdb#values

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:02 PM Jonathon Rossi <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jonathon Rossi <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Jonathon Rossi
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. <[hidden email]> 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=dcdb#values

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:02 PM Jonathon Rossi <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> wrote:

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jonathon Rossi <[hidden email]> 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

SimonPoole
In reply to this post by Ian Sergeant-2
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 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 "

to

"The explicit permission granted by the data.gov.au team (operated by the Digital Transformation Agency) is not valid for current CC BY-4.0 licensed datasets for which permissions need to be obtained directly from the respective rights owners."

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.

Simon



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

SimonPoole



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:

.. that we don't doubt the validity ..

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

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 the past.

I've made your suggested change to the page in regards to CC BY 4.0 datasets, I've also moved it to the bottom line of the section since that made sense.

If we don't doubt the validity of the permission granted as you mentioned we obviously don't know internal government arrangements way back, then does that mean we'd allow people to continue using the DNRM (and others) CC BY 2.5 datasets?

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:17 PM Simon Poole <[hidden email]> wrote:



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:

.. that we don't doubt the validity ..
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Andrew Harvey-3
In reply to this post by Jonathon Rossi
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.


In cases where they are pre CC 4.0 I've tried to see if they can upgrade to CC 4.0 and then get the waiver.

On 12 March 2018 at 16:16, Jonathon Rossi <[hidden email]> 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)

> 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

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.

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. <[hidden email]> 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. <[hidden email]> 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. <[hidden email]> 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 <[hidden email]> 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 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 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
- Victoria DELWP have signed the waiver
- 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. <[hidden email]> 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, 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
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au





--
Jono


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

SimonPoole
In reply to this post by Jonathon Rossi


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 the past.
Jonathon the effort is clearly appreciated. At the time the issue was rather hotly debated and (as I wasn't really involved at the time) we would likely need to ask Michael Collinson for the historic information.


I've made your suggested change to the page in regards to CC BY 4.0 datasets, I've also moved it to the bottom line of the section since that made sense.

If we don't doubt the validity of the permission granted as you mentioned we obviously don't know internal government arrangements way back, then does that mean we'd allow people to continue using the DNRM (and others) CC BY 2.5 datasets?

There are (at least) two aspects here:

- has the DNRM explicitly made a statement on the validity of the explicit permission from data.gov.au back then?  If no, then I don't see a reason to change our approach.
- we have tightened our regime wrt CC BY 4.0  relative to CC BY 2.5, because it is a significantly changed licence and a number of the concerns we have with 4.0 don't exist in such a form in 2.5 (in particular the for OSM very relevant section on database rights), and to be consistent we've asked, going forward, for the equivalent terms in older CC licenses to be waived too. We've however not asked anybody to go back to CC BY 2.X sources from which we have received permission in the past and assume that such permission continues to be valid for the datasets it was given at the time.

Simon 

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:17 PM Simon Poole <[hidden email]> wrote:



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:

.. that we don't doubt the validity ..
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au


_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
123