Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Michael Collinson]

I am the Michael Collinson mentioned by Simon, (hello Simon, it has been 
a while!). I still lurk on this list and after a long gap will be 
spending time in Australia each year. I am in Melbourne at the moment 
and look forward to meeting mappers here on my hopefully less busy visit 
later this year.



On 2018-03-12 22:57, Simon Poole wrote:

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 have hesitated to get involved in this discussion as my knowledge is 
now several years out of date, particularly as regards CC 4.0. However, 
I can make some comments from a historical perspective ...


In summary, I 100% agree with Simon that while there may be issues with 
CC 4.0, earlier dataset incorporation is a "done deal" and history. We 
can clearly show with a paper trail that we have acted properly and in 
good faith. The only thing that I would suggest: Various Australian 
government organisations have been very helpful to us, and much earlier 
than most. As a courtesy, I feel we should add a line to our high-level 
page https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright, (Simon?)


In more detail ...

I pinpointed a number of datasets published on the data.gov.au website 
under a CC-BY 2.5 license that had already been or could be incorporated 
into OSM, (not CC-SA-BY and not CC 4.0, CC 4.0 did not exist then). 
CC-BY 2.5 is completely compatible with our license except the 
completely impractical provision, (for multi-sourced open data), that 
all contributors be attributed equally - imagine attributing 4m 
contributors on each map made from our data.


I made successful contact with the good folks at data.gov.au with the 
form that I have copied below. The upshot was a series of about 20 
emails between Sept and Nov 2011. They were very helpful and said, yep, 
fine to keep the data and attribute them at 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution (now 
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#data.gov.au). They 
requested a number of changes to the exact wording and I have verified 
that it is still there.


Since paper trail is very important, I am happy to forward the whole set 
of emails to anyone who requests them - if you want to put them in a 
public place, great.


The most relevant email is this one from 2011-09-21:

 Start -
Hi Michael,

Thank you for contacting us.

We are happy to provide you with permission that end users of 
OpenStreetMap do not have to attribute all contributors equally, however 
within your wiki we would need links directly to each dataset you are 
using from data.gov.au.  Data.gov.au provides datasets from all three 
tiers of government which involved a number of different legal 
entities.  Providing a link to the record enables correct attribution of 
the data.  This also helps us to demonstrate to agencies how their 
information is being used positively and, hopefully, will encourage more 
open data with can be beneficial to services such as yours.


Please let us know when this alteration is made so we can promote it 
within Australian Government.


Could we also get you to change the reference to our catalogue from 
data.australia.gov.au to data.gov.au.


Thank you and please contact us if you require any further clarification.

Regards,
data.gov.au team.
 End -

Hope that helps,
Michael


Your Name (optional)

Michael Collinson

Email (optional)



mich...@osmfoundation.org

Topic (required)



Request to continue using geographic datasets

Message (required)



Hi,

Thank you for making geographic data available under an open license.

As chairman of the OpenStreetMap Foundation's License Working Group, I 
am writing to ask specific permission to continue incorporating a small 
number of your geographic coordinate datasets in our OpenStreetMap 
global geo-dataset. I previously wrote to Commonwealth Copyright 
Administration, Attorney General’s Department as per earlier 
instructions on your website, but did not receive an answer.


The datasets in question are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 
Australia (CC-BY). We changing our own license away from CC-BY-SA 2.0 
license since we were advised by Creative Commons that such a license is 
not suitable for highly factual data. We respect the IP rights of others 
and are concerned that with a different license we may not meet your 
needs. We feel that without specific permission to continue, we should 
remove your data.


In summary, we comply with all your licensing 

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Simon Poole]

Am 14.03.2018 um 22:50 schrieb Graeme Fitzpatrick:
>
>
> OK, a stupid, well & truly outside the box, thought here! :-)
>
> If we have discussions with CC, is there any possibility of getting
> them to write into CC BY 4.5 & following editions, that "by the
> Organisation agreeing to the terms of CC BY xx, that they also agree
> to ODbl" or something to that effect?
>
Hahaha :-)

Well CC BY 4.0 might have actually been that if they (all IMHO now)
hadn't given in to the group that didn't want to agree to parallel
distribution being an allowed method to guarantee that the underlying
data remains open (I spent a fair amount of time two years back reading
all the publicly available discussion leading up to 4.0, and a frequent
statement  in the context was that "everybody ignores it anyway" (it ==
the DRM prohibition)).

We would still have the attribution problem, but that is, as this
discussion shows, in general not an issue.

Simon

> Graeme
>
>
> ___
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

Thanks mate - much nicerer! (at least for these tired old eyes) :-)

Good luck with your continuing efforts

Thanks

Graeme

On 14 March 2018 at 23:12, Andrew Harvey  wrote:

> Hey Graeme,
>
> Really appreciate the feedback!
>
> > What does the black type for  CC BY 4.0 eg  QSpatial State Controlled
> Roads&  QSpatial Property Address signify?
>
> It just means I haven't contacted them to get the waiver signed yet, I see
> in this thread others have tried to get the waiver completed for DNRM and
> have been pushed back, but I will try again with a different approach and
> if still no update it. State Controlled Roads is a TMR dataset which I'm
> contacting separately.
>
> > & could you possibly use a brighter green (fluoro perhaps) for those
> places that have given us the waiver? (on my screen, at least, your dark
> green is very similar to black)
>
> I've changed it to a background colour, I think it makes it easier to scan
> the list and identify the status easier.
>
>
> On 13 March 2018 at 08:30, Graeme Fitzpatrick 
> wrote:
>
>> I reckon some poor sod at DNRM must be getting sick & tired of hearing
>> from OSM contributors by now! They may grant us the waiver just to shut us
>> up & make us leave them alone! :-)
>>
>> On 12 March 2018 at 21:14, Andrew Harvey 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for all that work Andrew.
>>
>> Couple of questions thanks?
>>
>> What does the black type for  CC BY 4.0 eg  QSpatial State Controlled
>> Roads
>> &
>> QSpatial Property Address
>> 
>>  signify?
>>
>> & could you possibly use a brighter green (fluoro perhaps) for those
>> places that have given us the waiver? (on my screen, at least, your dark
>> green is very similar to black)
>>
>> Thanks
>>
>> Graeme
>>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Graeme Fitzpatrick]

On 13 March 2018 at 19:47, Simon Poole  wrote:

>
> * a small note on the side, when discussing ODbL and CC BY 4.0
> compatibility with Creative Commons, representatives of the organisation
> voiced the opinion that most of the rewrite was just clarification of
> terms that the previous versions contained, in particular that the
> attribution requirement had always allowed indirect attribution if it
> was the appropriate choice.
>
>
OK, a stupid, well & truly outside the box, thought here! :-)

If we have discussions with CC, is there any possibility of getting them to
write into CC BY 4.5 & following editions, that "by the Organisation
agreeing to the terms of CC BY xx, that they also agree to ODbl" or
something to that effect?

Graeme
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

Apologises, I missed that. BCC definitely seem one of the most progressive
Australian agencies surrounding open data so that should go well. Thanks
again for your work.

On Wed, Mar 14, 2018 at 11:37 PM Andrew Harvey 
wrote:

> Oh I was referring to the Brisbane City Council data you mentioned not
> DNRM.
>
>
> On 15 Mar. 2018 12:26 am, "Jonathon Rossi"  wrote:
>
> I'll reach out to them to see if we can get the waiver completed tomorrow,
>> in the meantime I've added it too the list.
>>
>
> This isn't intended to sound rude, but why do you think they would have a
> different opinion on the CC BY 2.5 waiver and not just get the same
> response Joel received?
>
> It appears either DNRM either don't understand the waiver, or are not
> interested in passing it on to their lawyers. Do you have contacts there?
>
>
>
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Andrew Harvey]

Oh I was referring to the Brisbane City Council data you mentioned not
DNRM.

On 15 Mar. 2018 12:26 am, "Jonathon Rossi"  wrote:

I'll reach out to them to see if we can get the waiver completed tomorrow,
> in the meantime I've added it too the list.
>

This isn't intended to sound rude, but why do you think they would have a
different opinion on the CC BY 2.5 waiver and not just get the same
response Joel received?

It appears either DNRM either don't understand the waiver, or are not
interested in passing it on to their lawyers. Do you have contacts there?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

>
> I'll reach out to them to see if we can get the waiver completed tomorrow,
> in the meantime I've added it too the list.
>

This isn't intended to sound rude, but why do you think they would have a
different opinion on the CC BY 2.5 waiver and not just get the same
response Joel received?

It appears either DNRM either don't understand the waiver, or are not
interested in passing it on to their lawyers. Do you have contacts there?
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Andrew Harvey]

> I like the idea of getting a fresh agreement about attribution to
continue using the CC BY 2.5/3.0 licensed data, even if we cannot use the
CC BY 4.0 data today. I don't think it would be hard to get the rights
holder's okay that they are happy with our attribution of their data.

Agreed, that's what I've been working on with
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australian_Data_Catalogue to get all CC
licensed Open Data under the OSMF CC BY waiver.

> @AndrewH that looks great, once the page has got a heap of green it'll be
useful. I noticed you are missing the BCC datasets, although I've not used
them.

Thanks Jono, I'll reach out to them to see if we can get the waiver
completed tomorrow, in the meantime I've added it too the list.
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Simon Poole]

Am 14.03.2018 um 13:06 schrieb Jonathon Rossi:
> ...
>
> Could you please point me to a good resource that explains why CC BY
> 2.5 and 3.0 don't have the same problem with "technical protection
> measures" that we've got in the waivers because I'm obviously missing
> something. I've read the license texts
> and 
> https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Application_of_effective_technological_measures_by_users_of_CC-licensed_works_prohibited.
>
> ...

There is no doubt that we have a moral and ethical obligation to keep CC
BY 2.X licensed data available free of restrictions, as the licensors
intended. The ODbL guarantees this via the parallel distribution
mechanism. But naturally it would be preferable if we could get complete
waivers for the CC BY 2.X datasets, sorry if I came across as implying
otherwise .

Simon


signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

[Jonathon Rossi]

>
> No, that was a deliberate attempt to take this discussion off-list as
> I'm not sure that there is much point in raking over old mistakes
> unless we are trying to learn from our mistakes.
>

I know at least I am learning a lot about the whole licensing area and from
these past mistakes here and also now have an appreciation of the effort
and heartache others have gone though to get things to where they are
today. Hopefully this thread results in something useful.

> Your interpretation makes sense to me the way you explained it, I
> > hadn't noticed that detail. I assume you expect that if the
> > data.gov.au  team really meant to include other
> > non-Australian Government agencies it would explicitly be "Australian
> > Government and state and territory governments"
>
> Yes. In light of comments like this:
>
> https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-au@openstreetmap.org/msg07906.html
>
> we should be assuming that the attribution statement is precisely what
> the AGIMO meant it to be.
>

I had a look at some history of the data.australia.gov.au and data.gov.au
web sites, and as others claimed in those mailing list threads these web
sites appear to have always run as a portal where a government agency can
submit data and pick a license from a drop down, the data was even grouped
into "jurisdictions" on data.gov.au.

The copyright pages also had this:

> If you have any questions, please contact the contributing agency.
(captured 12 Nov 2009,
https://web.archive.org/web/20091112020639/http://www.australia.gov.au/about/copyright#data
)

> If you have any questions about a particular dataset on data.gov.au,
please contact the contributing agency.
> (captured 11 Mar 2011,
https://web.archive.org/web/20110311145839/http://data.gov.au/about/copyright/
)

Strangely the DCDB dataset was still available on data.australia.gov.au prior
to and on 26 Nov 2010, but disappeared by 01 Mar 2011:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101126161529/http://data.australia.gov.au:80/catalogue/property
https://web.archive.org/web/20110301031838/http://data.australia.gov.au/catalogue/property

... I thought maybe it moved to data.gov.au during a transition? However I
couldn't find it at any point in time under any of these (although that
doesn't mean it wasn't there):
- "Queensland" under jurisdictions (
https://web.archive.org/web/20110311235629/http://data.gov.au/jurisdiction/)
- "Property" category, while the other "property" category datasets did
come across from data.australia.gov.au
- QLD DERM agency (
https://web.archive.org/web/20110601192908/http://data.gov.au/data/?agency=Queensland+Department+of+Environment+and+Resource+Management
)

but I can't find any subsequent response to say if the ABS data was
> ever listed on data.gov.au. If anybody was mapping back in 2011 and
> knows it would be good to find out.
>

AndrewD, in Aug 2011 there were quite a lot of ABS datasets on data.gov.au:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110829100039/http://data.gov.au:80/data/?agency=Australian+Bureau+of+Statistics

To give a bit more context and perhaps point out a way to resolve this
> without every thing blowing up:
>
> At the time the permission from data.gov.au was obtained, OSM was in the
> final stages of the licence change. Normally the LWG wouldn't have
> become directly involved at all in the matter of licensing national
> datasets, just as it is now only involved on request in late stage
> vetting. However at the time there was a die hard group of people that
> wanted to derail the licence change at essentially all costs, and
> unluckily some of the louder voices were Australian. The people involved
> jumped on use of CC BY 2.* datasets from Australian government sources
> in OSM as one of the major arguments against the licence change and
> nobody local seemed to be willing to resolve the issue, as a result the
> LWG engaged directly with data.gov.au.
>

Simon, thanks for the background, I thought there was context I was missing
as I read though all the emails in those long threads yesterday. I can now
understand why various parties have a bad taste in their mouth over this
topic and why some people stepped away from the project.

Now it should be pointed out that, as I've said previously, the major
> concern, and why we wanted permission in the first place is that the
> ODbL doesn't require downstream attribution on derivative databases and
> works, it just requires a pointer back to the source of the database.
> That is the reason why OSM, in one way or the other, has always required
> that data sources that have licensed their data on CC BY 2.X/3.0 terms
> agree that indirect attribution via the website or the contributors page
> is sufficient. I have yet to hear that such agreement has been withheld,
> as clearly anything else would be totally impractical. It should be
> noted that we didn't require downstream attribution even when OSM data
> was licensed CC BY SA 2.0, and we would have needed exactly the same
>