Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
Thanks Mark and I appreciate your feedback. I very much hope you will be able to accept the new terms and get back to mapping and will help if I can. The direct answer to your question is that if ABS data is available and downloaded from data.gov.au [1], and has a CC-BY license, then yes. I checked a fairly large random sample and, indeed, all of them were CC-BY. If the dataset is only available from the ABS website [2] then it would be best to be cautious and courteous by asking them directly. I have not done so as I believe everything (geographical) that the OSM community wants is at data.gov.au, but am happy to do so if asked. Now, at a practical level, I believe this all boils down to one dataset of suburb boundaries [3]. I hope others will correct me if I am wrong here. There is also an interesting dataset of post code areas, I believe that has never been imported, but could be done now. The suburbs dataset in OSM is from 2006 data and was imported by Franc under the user account http://www.openstreetmap.org/user/ABS2006. I have confirmed that Franc does not wish to accept the new contributor terms on behalf of that account. It will therefore have to be removed. It can be replaced with a newer 2011 dataset [4], so is probably a good thing anyway? Franc has very kindly made the original Perl import script available, I can mail it anyone who wants it. Ogr2osm [5] has also been recommended to me as a very up-to-date tool. I am steadily hijacking your original question but my suggestion is that this be done fairly soon after a bit of discussion so that folks know what is happening, checked that the details I am presenting are correct and can give some input. One question: should all relevant boundaries be removed (easy, clean but will also blow away some local corrections made by contributors) or should just the ABS2006 user data be removed, (which will leave the corrections but be messier and require some manual merging when the new 2011 set is imported)? Hope that helps, Mike [1] http://data.gov.au/data/?agency=Australian+Bureau+of+Statistics [2] _http://www.abs.gov.au/geography_ and http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/webpages/statistics?opendocument are good starting points. [3] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue/ABS_Data Franc's write up on the orginal import [4] http://data.gov.au/dataset/state-suburbs-asgs-non-abs-structures-ed-2011/ Latest suburb boundaries? [5] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Ogr2osm Import tool On 15/11/2011 23:40, Nilbog_aus_OSM wrote: Thanks Michael. Actually seeing a full copy of an email including the OKing the use of gov.au data is what I was waiting for also. Getting an explicit email approving the use is going above and beyond for me and much appreciated. I haven't been following OSM as much as I did now my uses for it have dropped. So please forgive me if the following question has been answered or has become inflammatory. Does the gov.au Ok also cover the ABS data? As the ABS data is the only thing left stopping me accepting the new terms. Thanks Mark *From:* Michael Collinson [mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz] *Sent:* Wednesday, 16 November 2011 2:34 AM *To:* OSM Australian Talk List *Subject:* Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted On 15/11/2011 11:58, 80n wrote: Can you please publish the verbatim correspondence that you have had with your man at data.gov.au http://data.gov.au? Your interpretation is fine, but others may see nuances that you have overlooked. The statement on the wiki is not a statement from data.gov.au http://data.gov.au and counts for nothing unless you have a document from your man at data.gov.au http://data.gov.au that references it and says yes that's ok. Do you have such a document? Gosh, this is getting kakfaesque. Hope this puts this it to bed: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission and copied below in response to my request today, also copied below. Mike - Hi Michael, Thank you for your email. The attribution statement Contains data from Australian government public information datasets. The original datasets are available from the Australian government data website http://data.gov.au/ under Creative Commons - Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC-BY) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/ and Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC-BY) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/. 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/ http://data.australia.gov.au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On 15/11/2011 22:38, Andrew Laughton wrote: Yahoo granted permission for us to trace from their imagery. yahoo imagery was available in josm and potlatch for quite some time. So I'd expect that your tracing of yahoo imagery is fine unless I misunderstand what you did. I knew it was fine at the time, while it licensed by CC-by-SA or CC-by. I did not know it was OK by them to also publish it under a ODbL license. This is why I thought both government data and traced data needed to be removed because of this license change. So just to be clear, Nearmap are OK with CC-by-SA, but not with ODbL after a certain date ? Anything traced before 18th June 2011 is fine under both CC-by-SA and ODbL. This remains true if you accept the new contributor terms. Nearmap's commercial concerns are with the contributor terms rather than the licenses. Ben Last's statement on behalf of Nearmap can be found here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-June/008098.html Mike ___ 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 31/10/2011 17:51, 80n wrote: On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: 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 http://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. Are you saying that you published the information on the wiki page and *then* asked someone at data.gov.au http://data.gov.au to review it and give their assent? If so then please publish the email or letter that contains this affirmation. I think that is what we are looking for. 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. The lack of evidence to support the claim that OSM have explicit special permission... is cause enough in this case to not take yes at face value. There is no claim of special permission. 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 http://data.gov.au data for other projects, write to them. And indeed Andrew Harvey did just that as he wrote here: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-September/008464.html The reply contained the statement: We do not consider that what we are providing is “special permission” As this directly contradicts the statement written on the wiki by yourself, and echoed in Grant's email, you can surely see why more information about this supposed arrangement would help to clarify matters. I fail to see a contradiction. If you are not sure about something, you ask explicitly and get an explicit answer. That is what we got. That is what is written on the wiki with the kind assistance of data.gov.au. If it helps, me formally affirm and represent what I have said before: I have had a series of correspondance with data.gov.au where: 1) I have explictly pointed out we are moving to another license specifically written for open data, that it might not jive with CC-BY and so they may not be happy with the provisions for downstream attributions, and asked them if they could explictly give us permission to continue use or if we should remove it; 2) The conclusion being yes, we can 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 [http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets] 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/; 3) For public transparency, the operative version of the statement is not in the correspondance but directly drafted at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets and actively reviewed by data.gov.au to their satisfaction. Mike ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
I fail to see a contradiction. If you are not sure about something, you ask explicitly and get an explicit answer. That is what we got. That is what is written on the wiki with the kind assistance of data.gov.au. If it helps, me formally affirm and represent what I have said before: I have had a series of correspondance with data.gov.au where: 1) I have explictly pointed out we are moving to another license specifically written for open data, that it might not jive with CC-BY and so they may not be happy with the provisions for downstream attributions, and asked them if they could explictly give us permission to continue use or if we should remove it; 2) The conclusion being yes, we can 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 [ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets] 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*; 3) For public transparency, the operative version of the statement is not in the correspondance but directly drafted at http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasetsand actively reviewed by data.gov.au to their satisfaction. Hi Mike I might be able to help a little. The words ... provided that primary attribution is made ... Would seem at first glance the exclude any license that does not require attribution. Perhaps you could explain to us what happens if a third party takes OSM data, and publishes it without any attribution at all. Would they be in violation of the Open Database License ? If not, the problem is that you are now distributing government data in violation of copyright law. 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
Andrew Laughton wrote: Perhaps you could explain to us what happens if a third party takes OSM data, and publishes it without any attribution at all. Would they be in violation of the Open Database License ? Yes. The summary (http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/summary/) says: Attribute: You must attribute any public use of the database, or works produced from the database, in the manner specified in the ODbL. For any use or redistribution of the database, or works produced from it, you must make clear to others the license of the database and keep intact any notices on the original database. And the full licence says: 4.2 Notices. If You Publicly Convey this Database, any Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, then You must: [...] c. Keep intact any copyright or Database Right notices and notices that refer to this License. 4.3 [...] if you Publicly Use a Produced Work, You must include a notice associated with the Produced Work reasonably calculated to make any Person that uses, views, accesses, interacts with, or is otherwise exposed to the Produced Work aware that Content was obtained from the Database, Derivative Database, or the Database as part of a Collective Database, and that it is available under this License. Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/ODbL-data-gov-au-permission-granted-tp6824368p6995976.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
[crosspost removed] 80n wrote: Most importantly it allows subsequent copies of the produced work to be made with no attribution. No, it doesn't. An attribution statement without a downstream requirement is not reasonably calculated. This has been gone over ad nauseam in legal-talk. Richard ___ 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, Nov 15, 2011 at 9:54 AM, Andrew Laughton laughton.and...@gmail.com wrote: This is different to what I thought is was. Could someone please remind me why Nearmap and Google maps do not want us to trace their aerial views ? That they don't want us to trace from their images is enough. They don't need to offer a reason. Also if I agree to the new license, is there an easy way to delete all my Yahoo aerial tracing, or is this now allowed ? Why would you want to remove that data? ___ 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 15/11/2011 11:58, 80n wrote: Can you please publish the verbatim correspondence that you have had with your man at data.gov.au http://data.gov.au? Your interpretation is fine, but others may see nuances that you have overlooked. The statement on the wiki is not a statement from data.gov.au http://data.gov.au and counts for nothing unless you have a document from your man at data.gov.au http://data.gov.au that references it and says yes that's ok. Do you have such a document? Gosh, this is getting kakfaesque. Hope this puts this it to bed: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission and copied below in response to my request today, also copied below. Mike - Hi Michael, Thank you for your email. The attribution statement “Contains data from Australian government public information datasets. The original datasets are available from the Australian government data website http://data.gov.au/ under Creative Commons - Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC-BY) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/ and Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC-BY) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/. 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/ http://data.australia.gov.au/: “ accurately reflects what we have said. Regards, Data.gov.au team. On 15/11/2011 11:35, Michael Collinson wrote: Hi again, Thanks for your email of 19th October. I am rather embarrassed to do this but may I ask to you give a more formal assent to satisfy some of our map data contributors and that I can publish? May be: The attribution statement “Contains data from Australian government public information datasets. The original datasets are available from the Australian government data website http://data.gov.au/ under Creative Commons - Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC-BY) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/ and Creative Commons - Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC-BY) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/. 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/ http://data.australia.gov.au/: “ accurately reflects what we have said. Regards, Michael Collinson OpenStreetMap Foundation ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
Also if I agree to the new license, is there an easy way to delete all my Yahoo aerial tracing, or is this now allowed ? Why would you want to remove that data? I do not want to, but this is the reason I originally disagreed, because the derived data is not compatible with the open database license, and needed to be removed. Mostly lakes and rivers. Is it now OK to leave this data intact ? ___ 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, Nov 15, 2011 at 10:46 AM, Andrew Laughton laughton.and...@gmail.com wrote: Also if I agree to the new license, is there an easy way to delete all my Yahoo aerial tracing, or is this now allowed ? Why would you want to remove that data? I do not want to, but this is the reason I originally disagreed, because the derived data is not compatible with the open database license, and needed to be removed. Mostly lakes and rivers. Is it now OK to leave this data intact ? Yahoo granted permission for us to trace from their imagery. yahoo imagery was available in josm and potlatch for quite some time. So I'd expect that your tracing of yahoo imagery is fine unless I misunderstand what you did. ___ 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 15/11/2011 15:54, Andrew Laughton wrote: This is different to what I thought is was. Could someone please remind me why Nearmap and Google maps do not want us to trace their aerial views ? Google just don't allow it in their basic terms of service. We have asked them to allow us and the informal answer was that the imagery comes from different suppliers under different agreements, so it would be just too difficult. We also provide a map from our own website as well as map data so are a potential competitor ... but that is me speculating. Nearmap have a business model that requires them to claim copyright from their commercial customers of not only the imagery but anything that is traced from it. Therefore they were very tightly constrained to make sure they did nothing that undermined their commercial business. Both they, and us, tried very hard but in the end I guess their lawyers were unable to sign off on it from a commercial risk point of view. Bing make no claim on anything traced as long as it is put in the OSM database. Me speculating again; this is a case where having a share-alike license is a good thing, Microsoft, like IBM and Novell with Linux, can make something available safe in the knowledge that it cannot be snaffled and improved by a competitor during at least a business cycle, help their customers with an OSM layer, and eventually spend less money on other commercial map providers. It will be great if they can extend their higher-resolution coverage of Australian non-city areas, something to work on. Also if I agree to the new license, is there an easy way to delete all my Yahoo aerial tracing, or is this now allowed ? I think I had a source tag on most, if not all of it, but at the moment I am locked out from viewing it. Yahoo imagery is or or shortly will be longer available as they are winding up their own map unit, the imagery delivery has been on auto-pilot for some time. The permission to use it for past tracing remains unchanged and they make no copyright claim over the tracings made, so I hope that solves the question? If not or you or anyone else has other difficult data, let me know and we will try to help. We have one instance where a contributor can accept for data in one area of the world but not another area, and another instance where a contributor feels they cannot accept for contributions made during a certain time interval. Mike ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
Thanks Michael. Actually seeing a full copy of an email including the OKing the use of gov.au data is what I was waiting for also. Getting an explicit email approving the use is going above and beyond for me and much appreciated. I haven't been following OSM as much as I did now my uses for it have dropped. So please forgive me if the following question has been answered or has become inflammatory. Does the gov.au Ok also cover the ABS data? As the ABS data is the only thing left stopping me accepting the new terms. Thanks Mark From: Michael Collinson [mailto:m...@ayeltd.biz] Sent: Wednesday, 16 November 2011 2:34 AM To: OSM Australian Talk List Subject: Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted On 15/11/2011 11:58, 80n wrote: Can you please publish the verbatim correspondence that you have had with your man at data.gov.au? Your interpretation is fine, but others may see nuances that you have overlooked. The statement on the wiki is not a statement from data.gov.au and counts for nothing unless you have a document from your man at data.gov.au that references it and says yes that's ok. Do you have such a document? Gosh, this is getting kakfaesque. Hope this puts this it to bed: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permissi on and copied below in response to my request today, also copied below. Mike - Hi Michael, Thank you for your email. The attribution statement Contains data from Australian government public information datasets. The original datasets are available from the http://data.gov.au/ Australian government data website under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/ Creative Commons - Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC-BY) and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/ 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/ http://data.australia.gov.au: accurately reflects what we have said. Regards, Data.gov.au team. On 15/11/2011 11:35, Michael Collinson wrote: Hi again, Thanks for your email of 19th October. I am rather embarrassed to do this but may I ask to you give a more formal assent to satisfy some of our map data contributors and that I can publish? May be: The attribution statement Contains data from Australian government public information datasets. The original datasets are available from the http://data.gov.au/ Australian government data website under http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/au/ Creative Commons - Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC-BY) and http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/ 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/ http://data.australia.gov.au: accurately reflects what we have said. Regards, Michael Collinson OpenStreetMap Foundation ___ 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 rich...@weait.com 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
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 9:34 AM, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au 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
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 19:51, waldo000...@gmail.com 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] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 1:12 PM, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com 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 31 October 2011 20:12, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 19:51, waldo000...@gmail.com 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 31 October 2011 14:44, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com 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 Sun, 30 Oct 2011 23:44:13 -0400 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net 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 Mon, 31 Oct 2011 19:34:48 +1100 Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote: Richard Weait rich...@weait.com 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 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, Oct 31, 2011 at 10:31 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: [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 Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Chris Barham cbar...@pobox.com wrote: On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 19:51, waldo000...@gmail.com 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] 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] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz 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
On 31 October 2011 12:30, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: I think that data.gov.au can be taken at their word and that they have a clear understanding of which rights they may or may not grant. They're a clearing house, nothing more, and don't own any of the content. ___ 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, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:19:56 -0400 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: 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 Looks blatantly fraudulent No. it's data.gov.au Of course it is. And they got it right in the original. I flipped au and gov in the transcription. Sorry. and again, they don't own the data, the data is owned by other entities in the name of the Crown And still, they'd know what they may and may not permit. ___ 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 13:10, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: And still, they'd know what they may and may not permit. You haven't dealt with government plebs much have you? They are one of the most unpleasant races in the galaxy. Not actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious, and callous. They wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the ravenous Bug-Blatter Beast of Traal without orders signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, lost, found, queried, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighter. ___ 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 22:10:36 -0400 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 9:50 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote: On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 20:19:56 -0400 Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: 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 Looks blatantly fraudulent No. it's data.gov.au Of course it is. And they got it right in the original. I flipped au and gov in the transcription. Sorry. and again, they don't own the data, the data is owned by other entities in the name of the Crown And still, they'd know what they may and may not permit. ___ Well I suggest that you don't transcribe. I suggest you use copy and paste as normal lazy people do. You have omitted the entire context. Last time you made these claims, we asked for the original to made available, and we still haven't seen an original. When I get an email from a bureaucrat, it follows a specific formula Dear writer In reply to email of date xxyyzz Text End Text Yours sincerely Joe Bureaucrat Head_Of_Writing_Emails Department of XXYY 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. As you persist down this path, you will be responsible for putting in your ODbL-licensed database material which is incompatible, as it is CC-BY 2.5 licensed data. 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, Oct 30, 2011 at 10:31 PM, Liz ed...@billiau.net 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? ___ 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 2:48 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew, that's great that you've had a response from AGIMO. Yes it is, I made sure to thank them for this. Would it be possible for you to share a copy of their response with this group? I've made a similar request to Grant about his explicit, express permission and it seems reasonable to ask you the same question. Sadly, we really need first hand documentary evidence for any claim, either way, to have any value. Below I quote the response from the data.gov.au team which I received: OpenStreetMap (OSM) are utilising datasets made available from data.gov.au under CC-BY 2.5 or CC-BY 3.0 only. They are required to attribute the authors correctly, which they now are through their Wiki. This provides an appropriate chain of attribution, in accordance with Creative Commons licensing, for any end user of OSM products. In the example you provided, you as end user would be obliged to attribute OSM when you used the extracted data. They, in turn, are obliged to attribute the original government dataset. We do not consider that what we are providing is “special permission” – we have only clarified our position on appropriate attribution. ___ 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 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. 80n, why the interest in Australian gov data licensing? Or maybe we'll never know. ;-) / Grant ___ 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 27 September 2011 11:22, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: Below I quote the response from the data.gov.au team which I received: OpenStreetMap (OSM) are utilising datasets made available from data.gov.au under CC-BY 2.5 or CC-BY 3.0 only. They are required to attribute the authors correctly, which they now are through their Wiki. This provides an appropriate chain of attribution, in accordance with Creative Commons licensing, for any end user of OSM products. In the example you provided, you as end user would be obliged to attribute OSM when you used the extracted data. They, in turn, are obliged to attribute the original government dataset. We do not consider that what we are providing is “special permission” – we have only clarified our position on appropriate attribution. Andrew, could you share the text of the questions + examples asked? It has an impact on the 2nd paragraph of their response. Regards Grant ___ 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 9:58 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: Andrew, could you share the text of the questions + examples asked? It has an impact on the 2nd paragraph of their response. My complete query which they replied to was: Hi, I see someone representing OpenStreetMap who claims that the AGIMO has given OpenStreetMap special permissions regarding the use of some of various agencies data on data.gov.au: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-September/008453.html I would like to confirm if this is actually the case, and if so can I ask why the AGIMO has given OpenStreetMap privileged special permissions? I would ask that the AGIMO grant the same conditions to everyone by a public license to anyone by dual licensing the data under the current CC license in dual with the license given to OpenStreetMap. We have been careful to point out that (under ODbL) we are not asking folks who make visual maps from OpenStreetMap to provide secondary attribution to each and every contributor, so would not be in compliance with the CC-BY Australia 2.5 and 3.0 license their data is normally provided under. They have raised no objection to this. Regarding the above point, this means that people who use the data from data.gov.au which they have obtained through OpenStreetMap, won't be required to attribute the original government authority, only OpenStreetMap. e.g. I could extract all the centerlink locations from OpenStreetMap (which OSM pulled from data.gov.au) and then use that data in a map without attributing the Commonwealth of Australia, or any other government agency. If you are going to grant this permission to OpenStreetMap, please grant it to the rest of us, ie. don't require attribution (because that is what it seems you have allowed OpenStreetMap to do by giving special privilege to them). ___ 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 11:22 AM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote: On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 2:48 AM, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote: Andrew, that's great that you've had a response from AGIMO. Yes it is, I made sure to thank them for this. Would it be possible for you to share a copy of their response with this group? I've made a similar request to Grant about his explicit, express permission and it seems reasonable to ask you the same question. Sadly, we really need first hand documentary evidence for any claim, either way, to have any value. Below I quote the response from the data.gov.au team which I received: OpenStreetMap (OSM) are utilising datasets made available from data.gov.au under CC-BY 2.5 or CC-BY 3.0 only. They are required to attribute the authors correctly, which they now are through their Wiki. This provides an appropriate chain of attribution, in accordance with Creative Commons licensing, for any end user of OSM products. In the example you provided, you as end user would be obliged to attribute OSM when you used the extracted data. They, in turn, are obliged to attribute the original government dataset. We do not consider that what we are providing is “special permission” – we have only clarified our position on appropriate attribution. Thank you, Andrew. I wonder if Grant received a similar answer but interpreted it in a different way. Grant? Perhaps we'll never know 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 12:53 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: 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. 80n, why the interest in Australian gov data licensing? Or maybe we'll never know. ;-) I'm interested in all matters relating to OSM licensing. Particularly statements that might encourage contributors to damage the provenance of OSM by submitting content that infringes other people's rights. As you know the value of OSM is that it is (largely) unencumbered by contributions from sources that reserve copyright. While some people may have lower standards than others, anything that increases the amount of infringing material in OSM needs to be resisted. Your unattributed statements are likely to be damaging unless you provide the documentary evidence to back them up. At first you claim to have explicit special permission but now you are back pedalling and seeking clarification. It would have been much better, and would *still* be much better, if you were to just publish what you received verbatim. Is there some reason why you are unwilling or unable to do this? 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 Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: I've just sent an enquiry to the AGIMO asking if this is true because the LWG has given no proof. Just like others I would like to know if the AGIMO has the authority to do a blanket license grant on other agencies data, or if they have actually received this special permission from each agency who's data is on data.gov.au. Thirdly if this is true, then I feel this is shockingly poor behaviour of the AGIMO. To grant special permissions exclusively to one party, which is made even worse when done behind closed doors... I would very much welcome less restrictive licensing of government owned data, but to give special privilege to OSM but no one else isn't very good behaviour of a Government in my humble opinion. Righto, I've got a response from the AGIMO. They have clarified that they have not granted any additional license to OSM. OSM can only use the data under the existing licenses (i.e. the existing CC licenses). From my understanding of the response I got from the AGIMO, the AGIMO provided clarification on the attribution requirement of the CC licenses applied to the government datasets. The AGIMO said OSM is required to attribute the authors [of the government CC licensed datasets], and they are happy with the attribution OSM gives on the wiki. The AGIMO are also happy for end users of OSM data [where that OSM data contains CC gov data] to attribute the data as from OSM, and then have OSM attribute the government source. So in other words they are happy for their attribution to be chained through the works. My understanding all along was you have the OSM database, that database is a collective/collaborative work, and every contributor owns the copyright/join copyright to the parts of the database that they have contributed. Any users of the OSM database must attribute all the individual copyright holders as per the CC-BY-SA license, but most OSM contributors seem happy with OSM data users attributing OSM Contributors with a link to OSM.org, where in turn they can find more fine grain attribution via the planet dump or API. However, if the OSMF wanted to license the OSM database which included CC-BY data.gov.au works under a license where map images made from such data need not provide any attribution, then OSMF doesn't have the rights to grant that right, as they don't own the copyright to data.gov.au data, nor do they have permission to license such data under a license that does not require any form of attribution for produced works. That is my concern, however I'm not really up to speed with produced works and that whole area, so any pointers of my flaws are quite welcome. ___ 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 25 September 2011 15:58, Ian Sergeant inas66+...@gmail.com wrote: Secondly, With the greatest respect to the user concerned, who has been a great contributor to OSM, I don't think we need necessarily respect his wishes. We need to look a bit more carefully at this area to see if anything has happened between the data source and OSM which could possibly be considered creative or original, or if it is just a pure data translation. The data imported was cc-by-sa at the time, you can't just strip that license condition out, you'd have to reimport otherwise you'd be in breach of the original condition placed on the person importing. ___ 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 Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: The Licensing Working Group has obtained explicit special permission Hi Grant, are you there? Can you please provide a link to this explict special permission that you've obtained? I'd particularly like to know what they think they've granted as a right, rather than what permissions you think they've given. 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, Sep 26, 2011 at 11:08 AM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.comwrote: Righto, I've got a response from the AGIMO. They have clarified that they have not granted any additional license to OSM. OSM can only use the data under the existing licenses (i.e. the existing CC licenses). Andrew, that's great that you've had a response from AGIMO. Would it be possible for you to share a copy of their response with this group? I've made a similar request to Grant about his explicit, express permission and it seems reasonable to ask you the same question. Sadly, we really need first hand documentary evidence for any claim, either way, to have any value. 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 24 September 2011 00:10, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: * Queensland national parks, state forests and conservation areas That dataset was actually done as two imports by two different people. The first was being done by me, from about 18 month to 15 months ago - manually going through the data since it also contained useful things like roads and rivers embedded in the data. I imported about 25-40% of the dataset, before stopping due to the licensing mess going on, because at the time the data wasn't compatible with the CTs and I didn't see any point continuing if the data was just going to be removed. The second import was done a few months ago IIRC, but I can't remember off the top of my head who was doing it. We did have a chat on #osm-au about it. If the dataset is now acceptable as far as re-licensing is concerned, I can go and flip my account from disagreeing with the CTs to agreeing with them, since data.gov.au things (especially the parks data) were the last of the datasets with issues for me :) -- James ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
I've just sent an enquiry to the AGIMO asking if this is true because the LWG has given no proof. Just like others I would like to know if the AGIMO has the authority to do a blanket license grant on other agencies data, or if they have actually received this special permission from each agency who's data is on data.gov.au. Thirdly if this is true, then I feel this is shockingly poor behaviour of the AGIMO. To grant special permissions exclusively to one party, which is made even worse when done behind closed doors... I would very much welcome less restrictive licensing of government owned data, but to give special privilege to OSM but no one else isn't very good behaviour of a Government in my humble opinion. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
Re: [talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
Okay seriously guys, no matter how much you hate LWG/OSMF, don't take this out on AGIMO or the state governments. Grant's opening post to this thread has been circulated widely by AGIMO staff today, it's not a hoax and obviously by announcing it publicly, not behind closed doors! Under the new IP policy, anybody can write to any federal agency and ask politely for another **open** licence: 11.(b) Consistent with the need for free and open re-use and adaptation, public sector information should be licensed by agencies under the Creative Commons BY standard as the default. An agency’s starting position when determining how to license its public sector information should be to consider Creative Commons licences (http://creativecommons.org.au/) or other open content licences. Agencies should license their public sector information under a Creative Commons licence or other open content licence following a process of due diligence and on a case-by-case basis. On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Andrew Harvey andrew.harv...@gmail.com wrote: I've just sent an enquiry to the AGIMO asking if this is true because the LWG has given no proof. Just like others I would like to know if the AGIMO has the authority to do a blanket license grant on other agencies data, or if they have actually received this special permission from each agency who's data is on data.gov.au. Thirdly if this is true, then I feel this is shockingly poor behaviour of the AGIMO. To grant special permissions exclusively to one party, which is made even worse when done behind closed doors... I would very much welcome less restrictive licensing of government owned data, but to give special privilege to OSM but no one else isn't very good behaviour of a Government in my humble opinion. ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au ___ 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 Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 5:04 PM, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir maxi...@gmail.com wrote: Okay seriously guys, no matter how much you hate LWG/OSMF, don't take this out on AGIMO or the state governments. Grant's opening post to this thread has been circulated widely by AGIMO staff today, it's not a hoax and obviously by announcing it publicly, not behind closed doors! Can you point me to the public announcement by the AGIMO? Thanks. Under the new IP policy, anybody can write to any federal agency and ask politely for another **open** licence: 11.(b) Consistent with the need for free and open re-use and adaptation, public sector information should be licensed by agencies under the Creative Commons BY standard as the default. An agency’s starting position when determining how to license its public sector information should be to consider Creative Commons licences (http://creativecommons.org.au/) or other open content licences. Agencies should license their public sector information under a Creative Commons licence or other open content licence following a process of due diligence and on a case-by-case basis. If the AGIMO has granted OSM the right to publish data.gov.au datasets under a license that does not require attribution, how can I request the same permission from the AGIMO granted to myself? From there can I port it to CC0? If the AGIMO are happy and able to do this, why haven't they done this already? ___ 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 24/09/2011, at 12:10 AM, Grant Slater wrote: The Licensing Working Group has obtained explicit special permission to incorporate geographic datasets from data.gov.au in the OpenStreetMap project database published under any free and open license, including ODbL SNIP This is great news! Congratulations are due to the LWG for making this happen. And that leaves these others where we are not yet sure exactly where they came from: * Queensland police stations * NSW Geographic Names Board places (importer contacted) * Queensland national parks, state forests and conservation areas * I don't think Qld Police Stations have been imported.. at least not in their entirety, as I found one recently at Augenthella that wasn't mapped. * Qld Nat Parks etc data source and import is documented on the wiki at: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Australia/Queensland/The_Department_of_Environment_and_Resource_Management/Protected_Areas_Import Regards, Chris ___ 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 24 September 2011 00:10, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: The Licensing Working Group has obtained explicit special permission to incorporate geographic datasets from data.gov.au in the OpenStreetMap project database published under any free and open license, including ODbL, ... Regretfully, the user who imported the data will not accept the new CTs for the ABS2006 import account and we respect his wishes. Firstly, excellent news - well done to all involved. Secondly, With the greatest respect to the user concerned, who has been a great contributor to OSM, I don't think we need necessarily respect his wishes. We need to look a bit more carefully at this area to see if anything has happened between the data source and OSM which could possibly be considered creative or original, or if it is just a pure data translation. Thirdly, lets make sure we take small steps with any renewed data imports. The 2006 ABS import has had some great uses, but there are still gaps in the community understanding of what it is and how we can use it. Hopefully we can learn from the previous mistakes before performing or renewing any mass data imports. Ian. ___ 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 Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: The Licensing Working Group has obtained explicit special permission to incorporate geographic datasets from data.gov.au in the OpenStreetMap project database published under any free and open license, including ODbL That is a huge relief! Not quite sure how it works (data.gov.au covers a lot of different jurasdictions and departments - seemed like an impossible task to ask each one to relicence) but if LWG is happy for that data to stay, that's good enough for 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 Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 10:23 AM, Alex (Maxious) Sadleir maxi...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 24, 2011 at 12:10 AM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote: The Licensing Working Group has obtained explicit special permission to incorporate geographic datasets from data.gov.au in the OpenStreetMap project database published under any free and open license, including ODbL That is a huge relief! Not quite sure how it works (data.gov.au covers a lot of different jurasdictions and departments - seemed like an impossible task to ask each one to relicence) but if LWG is happy for that data to stay, that's good enough for me! Yes, it is good of the Australian government to allow use of their data as a source for OSM. Thank you, Australian government. There is still the issue of import accounts continuing to decline, even though the data is unencumbered. I couldn't possibly comment on why a particular user might continue to decline CT/ODbL with their import account for a particular data set, when that dataset is suitable and permitted for inclusion under CT/ODbL. ___ 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 Fri, Sep 23, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Grant Slater openstreet...@firefishy.comwrote: The Licensing Working Group has obtained explicit special permission to incorporate geographic datasets from data.gov.au Grant Would you be kind enough to provide a link to this explicit special permission please? 80n ___ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
