Re: [talk-au] What to tag a fire-fighting water tank?
True, but that doesn't mean we need to use it. When they actually bother to give the SI unit a name, I'll think about using it. In the meantime, the named metric unit of volume is the litre (L), and you can use it with all the prefixes, including KL (or cubic metre), ML etc. The prefixes don't really work with the derived units, you need a named one. Stephen On 30 October 2011 16:19, John Smith wrote: > Might be commonly used in Australia but the SI unit is actually cubic metres. > ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Michael Collinson wrote: > > 1) I generally take "yes" to mean "yes" rather than looking for reasons why > it should mean no. Just so you know, this kind of statement may be interpreted by some as "go away, don't ask for details, I don't care if you have concerns, I know better than you." In Australia (and Britain, I guess), we say that one feels one has been "fobbed off" (http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/fob) Nevertheless, thanks for the other details. :) ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
Could you please, for about the fifth time of asking, publish a verbatim copy the permission that you have received. If you have some reason that you can't then you need to explain yourself. 80n ?? A verbatim copy of the permission that we have received is here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australian_government_public_information_datasets You can see the drafting history using the View History button. It was created using the input and review of data.gov.au over a series of correspondence I had with them. I believe it is clear, and by doing it as a public document, transparent. They have reviewed and are happy with the final version, so earlier correspondence, as is usual in legal discussion and as waldo00 points out, is now superseded. And to touch upon other issues raised in this thread: 1) I generally take "yes" to mean "yes" rather than looking for reasons why it should mean no. 2) No preferential treatment has been given, if anyone else wants to do the right thing and ask for clarification for a specific use of data.gov.au data for other projects, write to them. 3) Having lived and worked some years in Australia, I do not recognise the description of government officials given. I have generally found them to be straight-forward and pragmatic. My dealings here were no exception. Hope that helps, Mike Michael Collinson Chair, LWG ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] Taking "yes" for an answer.
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Richard Weait wrote: > > After long email correspondence data.gov.au have viewed the > text of the attribution page[1] and they find it "terrific". > > [1] > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets Hi. I haven't participated in talk-au for quite a while. I'd like to get back into it though if the legal matters settle down. I'm trying my best not to feed the trolls, but I honestly would like to know: 1) Are the legal representatives of OSM (OSMF, I guess? Grant?) accepting this brief offhand remark of "terrificness" as an official legal statement of permission? Or... 2) Do the legal representatives have a separate official legal statement of permission that they don't want to share with us? Maybe I should CC the legal list, I don't know - From what I gather, Grant is basically their representative, right? Thanks, Roy ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Other imports in AU
Would AU contributors please have a look at the Import Catalogue[1]. There are still some imports listed for Australia with incomplete details. It would be good to have those details completed. [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
[talk-au] Taking "yes" for an answer.
Let us bring back our presumption of good faith, shall we? Several posters here have suggested that data.gov.au don't know what permissions they have and what permissions they may grant. Another has suggested that data.gov.au would be likely to pay attention to every last detail of paperwork, and certainly intended to credit Douglas Adams correctly :-) I, and LWG, presume that data.gov.au do in fact have all of their licensing ducks in a row. And that they took their time in completing the discussion with LWG and gave it the sober governmental reflection that it deserved. LWG is unaware of any Australian OSM contributors having contacted their various government agencies to request permission for inclusion of that data in OSM. So the LWG contacted data.gov.au and data.gov.au think that having their data in OSM is a good thing. Licenses and CTs and all. After long email correspondence data.gov.au have viewed the text of the attribution page[1] and they find it "terrific". [1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [sharedmapau] Re: ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Grant Slater wrote: > 80n you are not a member of the Australian community. You are here to > cause trouble and discontent within the Australian community along > with your forking friends Dear Grant, Please continue to offer 80n the presumption of good faith to which posters on this list are entitled. Best regards, Richard ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [sharedmapau] Re: ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On 31 October 2011 11:18, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Sam Couter wrote: >> >> Liz wrote: >> > The answer from AGIMO (data.gov.au) will actually be irrelevant. >> >> I was hoping that the original communications would make clear exactly >> how relevant they are. At the moment we're all just guessing. >> > Based on the reply that I received from Grant, he appears to have no > intention of providing any information to back up his claims. > > It's over a month since he was asked to provide the supporting evidence. I > think we can conclude that he doesn't have it. > 80n you are not a member of the Australian community. You are here to cause trouble and discontent within the Australian community along with your forking friends from the sharedmap and fosm lists. Please, if you truely believe CC-BY-SA 2.0 to be the best license, go and make FOSM.org to be the best mapping project ever Please stop all your inane codswallop and mistruths. Mike of Licensing Working Group has had a number of contacts with data.gov.au and what we received in response is strongly believed to be acceptable permission to use their data and the LWG has reported as such. Regards Grant On behalf of myself. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Chris Barham wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 19:51, waldo000...@gmail.com > wrote: > > +1. Surely forwarding the emails is less work for you anyway than > > "transcribing" parts of the emails (?!). > > Did you consider why forwarding the full emails might be less than > wise? - I have, and will share my thoughts: > a number of people on this list are both vocal and vitriolic regarding > OSMF. > Making the licence negotiation details public could hand to those who > do not have good intentions towards OSM, potential tools to try and > damage the project. > Scenario A: A person could cut and paste the detail along with a > whiny cover letter to data.gov.au saying "no fair, me want too" - > piggy backing on the work done by licence group for the benefit of > OSM, all the while decrying anything OSMF does. > Scenario B: Someone could nitpick over detail and then jeopardise the > agreement by complaining vociferously to anyone who will listen about > how it's illegal because a full stop is misplaced; maybe complaining > to individual data owners e.g.: "Look at this, data.gov.au just > re-licenced your data" > If that were the case then I'm sure that the LWG is capable of making these points themselves. The fact is they haven't given any justification for not disclosing the original text of the statement. Copyright infringement is a serious business. Anyone who is encouraged to copy from some third party source without being able to refer to an authoritative permission is taking big risks. > I'm not suggesting it will happen, but it could, especially given the > historical (and breathtakingly non-sensical), level of animosity > towards OSMF and it's work. > Regardless of whether this could happen (and I am sure it wouldn't), it's not a good enough reason to not do the right thing. Clarity and transparency is essential if their efforts are to be trusted. > > Unless I misunderstand it, the licence group volunteer to sort this > stuff out, project users can assume they act in good faith and > applaud their successes. So why aren't we believing that this is what > they have done, under the oversight of the OSMF (who are there to > oversee)? > *Never attribute to malice that which * ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [sharedmapau] Re: ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Sam Couter wrote: > Liz wrote: > > The answer from AGIMO (data.gov.au) will actually be irrelevant. > > I was hoping that the original communications would make clear exactly > how relevant they are. At the moment we're all just guessing. > > Based on the reply that I received from Grant, he appears to have no intention of providing any information to back up his claims. It's over a month since he was asked to provide the supporting evidence. I think we can conclude that he doesn't have it. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Grant Slater wrote: > [personal comments redacted] > > / Grant > > Grant You forgot to cc the lists. Could you please, for about the fifth time of asking, publish a verbatim copy the permission that you have received. If you have some reason that you can't then you need to explain yourself. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 1:39 PM, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 12:53 PM, Grant Slater < > openstreet...@firefishy.com> wrote: > >> On 27 September 2011 12:09, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > Thank you, Andrew. >> > >> > I wonder if Grant received a similar answer but interpreted it in a >> > different way. Grant? >> > >> >> Hi 80n, yes the responses will be forthcoming. We are waiting on some >> further clarifications. LWG also now only meet fortnightly. >> > > Grant > If you have "explicit special permission" why do you seek further > clarification? Was it not explicit enough? > > Perhaps you'd be kind enough to publish the text of the permission you > have received. We can then see for ourselves. > Grant I'm still waiting for a response to this. Is there some reason why you cannot publish what you have? We've seen how wires get crossed with Richard's attempt to transcribe a message. Anything less than a verbatim copy of what you received has the potential to lead to confusion and misunderstand. 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:34:48 +1100 Sam Couter wrote: > Richard Weait wrote: > > Dear Talk-au, > > > > The License Working Group have had further communication with > > data.au.gov to confirm their position on permitting data.au.gov data > > in OpenStreetMap. data.au.gov have reviewed the Australian section > > of the attribution page > > > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets > > > > and responded as follows: > > > > > That is terrific – thank you > > > > > > Regards, data.au.gov Team > > > > We trust that you will find this to be sufficient confirmation that > > it is okay to include data from data.gov.au in OpenStreetMap with > > your CT/ODbL accounts. > > There's clearly some communication failure going on here. This isn't > sufficient confirmation of anything except maybe that somebody at > data.gov.au thinks something is terrific, probably something on the > attribution page. There's no mention of licence compatibility or > special permission grants, and a complete lack of the clear > statements I'd expect to see. All context has been removed, and the > phrase "That is terrific" can't stand alone. > > Richard, is it possible to simply forward the communications you have > from data.gov.au to this list, or otherwise make them publically > available? That should put the matter to rest one way or another. The answer from AGIMO (data.gov.au) will actually be irrelevant. Problem 1 At the beginning (email one of this thread) Grant said "You will see two lists. The first are datasets that are definitely from data.gov.au. The second is a list we are unsure of and will be working to contact individual agencies now we have the basic principle in place." This is the big misunderstanding. AGIMO only hosts or provides links to the datasets, all of them. It does not own any, and any request for permission to use these copyright works other than under the originally published licence has to come from the copyright holder. For example, the first one on the first list is National Parks and Asset Locations (South Australia), 29 October 2009, CC-BY 2.5 Australia, Department for Environment and Heritage (SA), originally retrieved from http://data.gov.au/589 If you want to use this under ODbL you have to ask DEH of SA. No use asking AGIMO, because it is a totally different government and has no ownership nor jurisdiction over the data. Can we finally get this straight? For example I take a photo. My sister publishes a link to the photo. Asking for permission to use it from my sister is inappropriate. We are related, but its not hers to approve any other use. Problem 2. There has been a lot written about reusing CC-by under ODbL. The incompatibility has been with the Contributor Terms. I am not going to read them again, and I don't care what they are now, but they were the big sticking point of legality. For example OSMF asks that my sister gives permission for the (same) photo to be used in OSMF owned dataset. My sister cannot give the permission because the photo isn't hers. The Dunny Database is quite specific in its licence on this point - prohibiting sublicensing absolutely. I have not examined any of the other individual licences of data on AGIMO's site. Liz ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:44:13 -0400 Richard Weait wrote: > On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Liz wrote: > > > As we are trying to tell you, AGIMO, who owns the "data.gov.au" > > domain, does not grant any copyright permissions whatsoever. They > > are a place which consolidates data and makes it available, but the > > actual government department or qango which owns the data has to be > > approached for an alteration in any licence conditions or > > confirmation of licence conditions. > > Are you suggesting that data.gov.au aren't aware of their own license > terms or that they are acting outside of their terms? What evidence > to you provide to support your accusations? > > I draw your attention to the following page http://data.gov.au/data/how-to-submit-a-dataset/ As you read this page, you will see that the submitting government authority specifies the licence under which the data is distributed, not AGIMO (data.gov.au) "Licensing your dataset 13. Choose a license for your dataset from the drop down box." ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On 31 October 2011 14:44, Richard Weait wrote: > Are you suggesting that data.gov.au aren't aware of their own license > terms or that they are acting outside of their terms? What evidence > to you provide to support your accusations? A non-trivial amount of data is listed as crown copyright or proprietary licensed, neither of which is compatible with the ODBL or the CT even if you do attribute. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On 31 October 2011 20:12, Chris Barham wrote: > On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 19:51, waldo000...@gmail.com > wrote: > > +1. Surely forwarding the emails is less work for you anyway than > > "transcribing" parts of the emails (?!). > > Did you consider why forwarding the full emails might be less than > wise? - I have, and will share my thoughts: > a number of people on this list are both vocal and vitriolic regarding > OSMF. > And with very good reason, you must be new here. > Making the licence negotiation details public could hand to those who > do not have good intentions towards OSM, potential tools to try and > damage the project. > Scenario A: A person could cut and paste the detail along with a > whiny cover letter to data.gov.au saying "no fair, me want too" - > piggy backing on the work done by licence group for the benefit of > OSM, all the while decrying anything OSMF does. > Can anybody give any good reasons why OSMF, or any other group or organization should be given preferential treatment ? Possibly you would prefer if someone like Bing bought exclusive rights to this data, and no-one else could use it. The whole point of the OSM license change was to allow other people to piggy back on their work, to take it without attributing any acknowledgement to the original source. While in some ways this is different, it seems very hypocritical to want to deny others the same rights, or to build on work that you have already done. Possibly you need to read the new OSM license again to try to understand the implications. > Scenario B: Someone could nitpick over detail and then jeopardise the > agreement by complaining vociferously to anyone who will listen about > how it's illegal because a full stop is misplaced; maybe complaining > to individual data owners e.g.: "Look at this, data.gov.au just > re-licenced your data" > Option 1 Crowd-source the fault finding, get everything right before anything is built on it. Option 2 Allow a potential time bomb into the project, in a year or two, some other mapping company or business might decide that OSM is a threat to them, and use these flaws to sink OSM. How much money does OSM have to defend itself ?, even just the threat should work if the original assumption is wrong in law. It would appear you prefer Option 2. > > I'm not suggesting it will happen, but it could, especially given the > historical (and breathtakingly non-sensical), level of animosity > towards OSMF and it's work. > > Unless I misunderstand it, the licence group volunteer to sort this > stuff out, project users can assume they act in good faith and > applaud their successes. So why aren't we believing that this is what > they have done, under the oversight of the OSMF (who are there to > oversee)? > > Chris > Sounds good to me. If OSM want to shoot themselves in the foot, what right do mappers have to disagree ? But then on the other hand, possibly the comments are not exclusivly for OSM, possibly they are being made to stop other projects from falling into the same trap. Andrew. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Chris Barham wrote: > > ... > Making the licence negotiation details public could hand to those who > do not have good intentions towards OSM, potential tools to try and > damage the project. Wow. If this is true, then the situation is worse than I thought. Is the only option left for OSMF to withhold this kind of important information from contributors? That's not the sort of community I want to be a part of. :-( Anyway, if I understand correctly, I don't think anyone cares about the "negotiation details", but rather we want to see the final, formal document authorised by the necessary parties. Regardless of how scared OSMF is of detractors, I think such a document is still a valid request of contributors/supporters (like me). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 19:51, waldo000...@gmail.com wrote: > +1. Surely forwarding the emails is less work for you anyway than > "transcribing" parts of the emails (?!). Did you consider why forwarding the full emails might be less than wise? - I have, and will share my thoughts: a number of people on this list are both vocal and vitriolic regarding OSMF. Making the licence negotiation details public could hand to those who do not have good intentions towards OSM, potential tools to try and damage the project. Scenario A: A person could cut and paste the detail along with a whiny cover letter to data.gov.au saying "no fair, me want too" - piggy backing on the work done by licence group for the benefit of OSM, all the while decrying anything OSMF does. Scenario B: Someone could nitpick over detail and then jeopardise the agreement by complaining vociferously to anyone who will listen about how it's illegal because a full stop is misplaced; maybe complaining to individual data owners e.g.: "Look at this, data.gov.au just re-licenced your data" I'm not suggesting it will happen, but it could, especially given the historical (and breathtakingly non-sensical), level of animosity towards OSMF and it's work. Unless I misunderstand it, the licence group volunteer to sort this stuff out, project users can assume they act in good faith and applaud their successes. So why aren't we believing that this is what they have done, under the oversight of the OSMF (who are there to oversee)? Chris ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] [sharedmapau] Re: ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
Liz wrote: > The answer from AGIMO (data.gov.au) will actually be irrelevant. I was hoping that the original communications would make clear exactly how relevant they are. At the moment we're all just guessing. -- Sam Couter | mailto:s...@couter.id.au OpenPGP fingerprint: A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05 5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Sam Couter wrote: > > Richard, is it possible to simply forward the communications you have > from data.gov.au to this list, or otherwise make them publically > available? That should put the matter to rest one way or another. > +1. Surely forwarding the emails is less work for you anyway than "transcribing" parts of the emails (?!). ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
Richard Weait wrote: > Dear Talk-au, > > The License Working Group have had further communication with > data.au.gov to confirm their position on permitting data.au.gov data > in OpenStreetMap. data.au.gov have reviewed the Australian section of > the attribution page > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets > > and responded as follows: > > > That is terrific – thank you > > > > Regards, data.au.gov Team > > We trust that you will find this to be sufficient confirmation that it > is okay to include data from data.gov.au in OpenStreetMap with your > CT/ODbL accounts. There's clearly some communication failure going on here. This isn't sufficient confirmation of anything except maybe that somebody at data.gov.au thinks something is terrific, probably something on the attribution page. There's no mention of licence compatibility or special permission grants, and a complete lack of the clear statements I'd expect to see. All context has been removed, and the phrase "That is terrific" can't stand alone. Richard, is it possible to simply forward the communications you have from data.gov.au to this list, or otherwise make them publically available? That should put the matter to rest one way or another. -- Sam Couter | mailto:s...@couter.id.au OpenPGP fingerprint: A46B 9BB5 3148 7BEA 1F05 5BD5 8530 03AE DE89 C75C signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
