Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] ACT CC BY waiver
Am 30.05.2017 um 12:04 schrieb Andrew Harvey: > > This is what they've said: > > "I have discussed this with our legal section and we are not in a > position to waive the conditions of CC BY, as it goes against the ACT > Government Open Data Policy that supports free and open data. > > My interpretation of those emails > [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/Australian_Capital_Territory] > are that we permitted OSM to use the data under the terms and conditions > of the CC BY licence, however you are now seeking to waive one aspect of > the CC BY licence to enable OSM to apply a technical protection measure, > and we are not prepared to waive that condition." > > Feels a bit ironic to me that we can't use this data in OSM since using > it in OSM would go against their open data policy! I can give them a longer explanation and rationale behind the request, however the short version is - the ODbL has a similar requirement that disallows "technical protection measures" however it allows parallel distribution of the database as a method to satisfy the requirement (see 4.7 a and b), so there is no question of us or any downstream consumer of OSM data denying access to our data/the ACT data via DRM (actually after reading the response, I suspect that they don't actually have the slightest idea what OSM is). - the ODbL allows for derived works that themselves are not databases, typically maps, to be licensed on any terms that are compatible with the attribution requirements of the ODbL. This naturally allows such a produced work to be technically protected etc., however the original OSM data will continue to be available on ODbL terms, so again not a question of denying access to it. CC BY does not differentiate between such uses and a non-data derivative would be treated exactly the same as a dataset. Simon signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] ACT CC BY waiver
Thanks for your thoughts Simon. On Tue, 30 May 2017, at 06:00 PM, Simon Poole wrote: > Andrew, pls jog my memory, is the ACT data available on CC BY 4.0 terms or are the terms based on a earlier version? It's CC BY 4.0 -> http://www.actmapi.act.gov.au/terms.html > The problem with point 2 is that, if taken seriously, the relevant terms impose rather far reaching restrictions on how derived works can be used, for example a map generated from such data cannot be distributed on a blu-ray disk, or shown on a DRM protected streaming service (for example Netflix)*. Now the terms in question are likely the most ignored language ever in open licensing and even in the discussions on the CC mailing list leading up to the 4.0 versions you can find statements like "everybody ignores it", but we are OSM, not your run-of-the-mill data aggregation project that couldn't care less and we have a certain duty to ensure our downstream users can actually OSM data on our advertised terms. > So for now I would suggest not using any more ACT data and going back to them and asking if having those restrictions in place is really their intent, and what they intend to achieve with them. This is what they've said: "I have discussed this with our legal section and we are not in a position to waive the conditions of CC BY, as it goes against the ACT Government Open Data Policy that supports free and open data. My interpretation of those emails [https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/Australian_Capital_Territory] are that we permitted OSM to use the data under the terms and conditions of the CC BY licence, however you are now seeking to waive one aspect of the CC BY licence to enable OSM to apply a technical protection measure, and we are not prepared to waive that condition." Feels a bit ironic to me that we can't use this data in OSM since using it in OSM would go against their open data policy! ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [talk-au] ACT CC BY waiver
Andrew, pls jog my memory, is the ACT data available on CC BY 4.0 terms or are the terms based on a earlier version? The problem with point 2 is that, if taken seriously, the relevant terms impose rather far reaching restrictions on how derived works can be used, for example a map generated from such data cannot be distributed on a blu-ray disk, or shown on a DRM protected streaming service (for example Netflix)*. Now the terms in question are likely the most ignored language ever in open licensing and even in the discussions on the CC mailing list leading up to the 4.0 versions you can find statements like "everybody ignores it", but we are OSM, not your run-of-the-mill data aggregation project that couldn't care less and we have a certain duty to ensure our downstream users can actually OSM data on our advertised terms. So for now I would suggest not using any more ACT data and going back to them and asking if having those restrictions in place is really their intent, and what they intend to achieve with them. Simon * interesting enough CC BY 4.0 IMHO expanded the scope of the relevant terms to not just DRM but any more restrictive terms in a copyleft fashion (see 5.B), however CC doesn't interpret it that way (which leads to the question why they added the text in the first place). Am 30.05.2017 um 07:25 schrieb Andrew Harvey: > I contacted the ACT Government to see if they could complete the CC BY > waiver form as provided > at https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/. We > have previous correspondence > at > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/Australian_Capital_Territory > from > which the local community I believe has started using ACT Government > data, but now we have a proper waiver form I wanted to make sure > everything was in order. > > The ACT Government have come back that point (1) in the waiver > regarding attribution is okay but they can't agree to point (2) in the > waiver. How important is having the data provider agree to both of > these points? What does this mean for any data already imported into > OSM from this source? Will it need to be removed? > > > ___ > Talk-au mailing list > talk...@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
