Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

2017-01-26 Thread James 
I have a statement from the city that the ODBL and ODL are inline and pose
no issues from the city's stand point.

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Canada:Ontario:Ottawa/Import/Plan#Explicit_permission

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Stewart C. Russell 
wrote:

> Hi James -
>
> > Yet it's the same as the Vancouver one that has been approved, and had
> > data imported
>
> Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the way that OSM needs to work.
> The licences aren't the same: you can't use Vancouver's agreement to
> bind the City of Ottawa, and the Federal agreement doesn't hold Ottawa
> to anything about its data.
>
> The Vancouver data was available to OSM because Paul Norman and Adam
> Williamson[1] got an agreement from the city's Director, Access to
> Information stating that the city's data sets were released in
> accordance with the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of
> Privacy Act[2].
>
> (I'd also recommend Paul Norman's notes on licence compatibility[3]
> linked from the OSM Vancouver page[4]: they explain why all these
> licenses aren't equivalent, and why it's so much work for us to accept
> them.)
>
> What I think - and I say think, because I'm learning too - needs to
> happen is that we ask the City's Access to Information officials:
>
> Can you please confirm in writing that the data sets
>  * (name of data set 1) (url of data set 1)
>  * (name of data set 2) (url of data set 2)
>  * ...
> are released in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Freedom
> of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?
>
> With that confirmation in hand, and the LWG's confirmation (requested by
> me, yesterday) that the City's data licence 2.0 is compatible, then I
> think the matter should go away. Apologies if my approach has appeared
> to change: as I said, I'm learning as I go along.
>
> Best Wishes,
>  Stewart
>
> References:
>
> [1]: “[Talk-ca] [Fwd: Compliance statement] - Vancouver address
> information cleared for OSM use”
>  February/006037.html>
>
> [2]: “Compliance statement”
>  attachments/20140203/c3441d6a/attachment.mht>
>
> [3]: “[Talk-ca] Nanaimo OGL license”
>  December/005974.html>
>
> [4]: “Canada:British Columbia:Vancouver”
>  Columbia:Vancouver#GIS_sources_by_city>
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>



-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

2017-01-26 Thread Stewart C. Russell 
Hi James -

> Yet it's the same as the Vancouver one that has been approved, and had
> data imported

Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the way that OSM needs to work.
The licences aren't the same: you can't use Vancouver's agreement to
bind the City of Ottawa, and the Federal agreement doesn't hold Ottawa
to anything about its data.

The Vancouver data was available to OSM because Paul Norman and Adam
Williamson[1] got an agreement from the city's Director, Access to
Information stating that the city's data sets were released in
accordance with the provincial Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act[2].

(I'd also recommend Paul Norman's notes on licence compatibility[3]
linked from the OSM Vancouver page[4]: they explain why all these
licenses aren't equivalent, and why it's so much work for us to accept
them.)

What I think - and I say think, because I'm learning too - needs to
happen is that we ask the City's Access to Information officials:

Can you please confirm in writing that the data sets
 * (name of data set 1) (url of data set 1)
 * (name of data set 2) (url of data set 2)
 * ...
are released in accordance with the Ontario Municipal Freedom
of Information and Protection of Privacy Act?

With that confirmation in hand, and the LWG's confirmation (requested by
me, yesterday) that the City's data licence 2.0 is compatible, then I
think the matter should go away. Apologies if my approach has appeared
to change: as I said, I'm learning as I go along.

Best Wishes,
 Stewart

References:

[1]: “[Talk-ca] [Fwd: Compliance statement] - Vancouver address
information cleared for OSM use”



[2]: “Compliance statement”



[3]: “[Talk-ca] Nanaimo OGL license”



[4]: “Canada:British Columbia:Vancouver”




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

Re: [Talk-ca] Crowdsourcing with Statistics Canada

2017-01-26 Thread James 
Yet it's the same as the Vancouver one that has been approved, and had data
imported

On Jan 25, 2017 8:30 PM, "Stewart C. Russell"  wrote:

> Hi Bjenk,
>
> > Most participants here agree that open data initiatives exist so that
> > we, the public, organizations including OSM, everyone can use the
> > data.
>
> The OSM project can't accept data that might have hidden licensing
> issues that might jeopardize OSM's existence. All new licenses are
> treated with extreme caution. From the Legal FAQ:
>
> “XYZ Organisation has data for free download under licence N. Can I use
> it in OSM?
>
> Approach the data owners, explain OSM, and seek written permission to
> licence their data under our licence and contributor terms.
>
> Unless the data is genuinely offered without any restrictions on use at
> all (i.e. public domain), please contact the Licensing Working Group for
> advice. Do not rely on your own legal interpretation of the licence. OSM
> is all about creating a freely and easily redistributable data set.
> Anything which taints the dataset or exposes OSM to possible legal
> action interferes with that objective.
>
> Even if you only want to use a minor part, or compare the sources, you
> should still seek approval in writing. The legal principles involved are
> not well developed, and the OSM community wants to develop a free and
> untainted dataset and not test any of the legal issues involved here.
>
> In short: be ultra-cautious”
>
>  Organisation_has_data_for_free_download_under_licence_N.
> _Can_I_use_it_in_OSM.3F>
>
> > With that said, It has not yet been clearly explained what are the
> > issues nor the sources raising concerns. Many have asked for
> > clarifications and these have not been presented.
>
> These responses take time. We're all volunteers who do this for fun.
> I've (just) requested clarification from the OSMF License Working group.
> I don't know if anyone had before. To OSM, the Ottawa licence is
> different from the Federal OGL, so it needs looked at.
>
>  Stewart
>
>
> ___
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca