Re: [Talk-ca] Brandon licensing

[john whelan]

>
It didn't seem to stop every single municipal and provincial government
wanting to tweak the wording a bit, which makes it a different licence
every time.

The TB licence is fairly new.  As far as I am aware only Ottawa has adopted
it so far.

Cheerio John

On 3 Mar 2018 2:16 pm, "Stewart C. Russell"  wrote:

> On 2018-03-03 11:59 AM, john whelan wrote:
> >
> > I assume you're not Canadian.
>
> Umm, Steve is one of the longest-standing Canadian OSM contributors. I
> think he's the admin of talk-ca too …
>
> > All data released through
> > their Open Data portal is under their licence which has been approved by
> > the LWG.
>
> It was grudgingly approved by the LWG. It's hardly a model licence. It's
> kind of a bad read on the UK licence, missing out key details that at
> least make the v2+ British licence bearable.
>
> > They spent some three or four years consulting with many
> > players including the provincial and municipal governments and the
> > licence they came up with is one they feel comfortable with.  It's not
> > perfect but it is a good balance.
>
> … if you're a government. Notice you didn't list any data users in the
> consulted parties. I remember responding to data consultations as a
> user, and a conservative estimate of 0% of user concerns were included
> in the final outcome.
>
> > Asking municipal and provincial governments to adopt a different licence
> > means they need to do due diligence which means bringing in the lawyers
> > to explain the implications.
>
> It didn't seem to stop every single municipal and provincial government
> wanting to tweak the wording a bit, which makes it a different licence
> every time.
>
> cheers,
>  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

Re: [Talk-ca] Brandon licensing

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-03-03 11:59 AM, john whelan wrote:
> 
> I assume you're not Canadian.

Umm, Steve is one of the longest-standing Canadian OSM contributors. I
think he's the admin of talk-ca too …

> All data released through
> their Open Data portal is under their licence which has been approved by
> the LWG.

It was grudgingly approved by the LWG. It's hardly a model licence. It's
kind of a bad read on the UK licence, missing out key details that at
least make the v2+ British licence bearable.

> They spent some three or four years consulting with many
> players including the provincial and municipal governments and the
> licence they came up with is one they feel comfortable with.  It's not
> perfect but it is a good balance.

… if you're a government. Notice you didn't list any data users in the
consulted parties. I remember responding to data consultations as a
user, and a conservative estimate of 0% of user concerns were included
in the final outcome.

> Asking municipal and provincial governments to adopt a different licence
> means they need to do due diligence which means bringing in the lawyers
> to explain the implications.

It didn't seem to stop every single municipal and provincial government
wanting to tweak the wording a bit, which makes it a different licence
every time.

cheers,
 Stewart

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

Re: [Talk-ca] Brandon licensing

[john whelan]

> Whenever I've spoken[1] to government representative about choosing an
OSM compatible license I tell them to choose between PDDL and CC0. Use one
of these two licenses as written, don't make any changes to them. These are
the two licenses listed as fully compatible with both the CT and ODBL
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility

I regard that as the guideline.  Any other licenses including custom
licenses make things more difficult.

[1] - Everytime I've provided input into a licensing consultation in Canada
the end result is that data is released under some other license. Not once
has someone explained to me why either of those licenses aren't acceptable.

I assume you're not Canadian.  Open Data is handled by Treasury Board which
is part of the Federal government.  All data released through their Open
Data portal is under their licence which has been approved by the LWG.
They spent some three or four years consulting with many players including
the provincial and municipal governments and the licence they came up with
is one they feel comfortable with.  It's not perfect but it is a good
balance.

Asking municipal and provincial governments to adopt a different licence
means they need to do due diligence which means bringing in the lawyers to
explain the implications.  It's cheaper and a lot faster to get the TB
licence approved than to start looking at other licenses.  Not all MPs or
councillors are in favour of Open Data, by making it sound as if its a
minor thing to pass through on a vote it slides through.  Any questions fob
them off with TB.

I understand there are parts of the world that don't have a lot of faith in
government and civil servants but in Canada it usually works quite well.

Cheerio John

On 3 March 2018 at 10:57, Steve Singer  wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, john whelan wrote:
>
> > This brings me to the conclusion after all these discussions something
>> similar to what SteveA-2009 mentioned.
>> Instead of having OSM conform to these licenses, would be be able to get
>> the governing bodies to conform to OSM?
>> In many cases, I'm working with my colleges in the GIS community to
>> borrow data,  if we could give them a
>> "guideline to a OSM request" document or something we might be able to
>> leverage a ton of data we wouldn't already
>> have. I think this is one of the main motivators behind building 2020.
>> That a lot of this data is accessable-ish,
>> opening it would only help add better data to OSM. (keeping in mind
>> quality, applicability ect)
>>
>> It's better if you get them to use the Treasury Board Open Data licence.
>> TB has a kit for municipalities and I
>> understand the licence is included.  The advantage is other organisations
>> can use the open data.  If you use
>> something OSM specific then someone lese might run into the same problem.
>>
>
> Whenever I've spoken[1] to government representative about choosing an OSM
> compatible license I tell them to choose between PDDL and CC0. Use one of
> these two licenses as written, don't make any changes to them. These are
> the two licenses listed as fully compatible with both the CT and ODBL
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility
>
> I regard that as the guideline.  Any other licenses including custom
> licenses make things more difficult.
>
> [1] - Everytime I've provided input into a licensing consultation in
> Canada the end result is that data is released under some other license.
> Not once has someone explained to me why either of those licenses aren't
> acceptable.
>
>
>
___
Talk-ca mailing list
Talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca

Re: [Talk-ca] Brandon licensing

[Steve Singer]

On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, john whelan wrote:


> This brings me to the conclusion after all these discussions something 
similar to what SteveA-2009 mentioned.
Instead of having OSM conform to these licenses, would be be able to get the 
governing bodies to conform to OSM?
In many cases, I'm working with my colleges in the GIS community to borrow 
data,  if we could give them a
"guideline to a OSM request" document or something we might be able to leverage 
a ton of data we wouldn't already
have. I think this is one of the main motivators behind building 2020. That a 
lot of this data is accessable-ish,
opening it would only help add better data to OSM. (keeping in mind quality, 
applicability ect)

It's better if you get them to use the Treasury Board Open Data licence.  TB 
has a kit for municipalities and I
understand the licence is included.  The advantage is other organisations can 
use the open data.  If you use
something OSM specific then someone lese might run into the same problem.


Whenever I've spoken[1] to government representative about choosing an OSM 
compatible license I tell them to choose between PDDL and CC0. Use one 
of these two licenses as written, don't make any changes to them. These are 
the two licenses listed as fully compatible with both the CT and ODBL

https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility

I regard that as the guideline.  Any other licenses including custom 
licenses make things more difficult.


[1] - Everytime I've provided input into a licensing consultation in 
Canada the end result is that data is released under some other license. Not 
once has someone explained to me why either of those licenses aren't 
acceptable.



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

[Talk-ca] Brandon licensing

[john whelan]

> This brings me to the conclusion after all these discussions something
similar to what SteveA-2009 mentioned. Instead of having OSM conform to
these licenses, would be be able to get the governing bodies to conform to
OSM? In many cases, I'm working with my colleges in the GIS community to
borrow data,  if we could give them a "guideline to a OSM request" document
or something we might be able to leverage a ton of data we wouldn't already
have. I think this is one of the main motivators behind building 2020. That
a lot of this data is accessable-ish, opening it would only help add better
data to OSM. (keeping in mind quality, applicability ect)

It's better if you get them to use the Treasury Board Open Data licence.
TB has a kit for municipalities and I understand the licence is included.
The advantage is other organisations can use the open data.  If you use
something OSM specific then someone lese might run into the same problem.

Cheerio John

On 2 March 2018 at 23:53, keith hartley  wrote:

> Thanks everyone for your info!
>
> I'm not the biggest fan of mail newsgroups cause responding in a
> comprehensive way is hard if you're working for a few days.
>
> Scruff - thanks for the insight on the license, would explicit permission
> from them for this project work? or does the license null it? It's supposed
> to be based off the national open data license but is highly modified.
>
> Jonathan good note! I think if we tag different areas of the city - we can
> attribute things more effectively.
>
> Also - I was thinking of adding info to the already built buildings using
> the City of Brandons info, I wasn't sure of the data use in this case.
> Based on what Scruff said, don't use at all!
>
> Street complete is a great app! I Was looking at using something like that
> or paper! I didn't have the best of luck with Vespucci.
>
> This brings me to the conclusion after all these discussions something
> similar to what SteveA-2009 mentioned. Instead of having OSM conform to
> these licenses, would be be able to get the governing bodies to conform to
> OSM? In many cases, I'm working with my colleges in the GIS community to
> borrow data,  if we could give them a "guideline to a OSM request" document
> or something we might be able to leverage a ton of data we wouldn't already
> have. I think this is one of the main motivators behind building 2020. That
> a lot of this data is accessable-ish, opening it would only help add better
> data to OSM. (keeping in mind quality, applicability ect)
>
>
> I'll add more tomorrow.
>
> Keith
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 9:45 AM,  wrote:
>
>> Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
>> talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> talk-ca-requ...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> talk-ca-ow...@openstreetmap.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>> than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>1. Re: Manitoba buildings, addresses and high school work
>>   (Stewart C. Russell)
>>2. Re: BC2020i Mapathon Event (Jonathan Brown)
>>3. Re: Manitoba buildings, addresses and high school work
>>   (john whelan)
>>4. Re: Manitoba buildings, addresses and high school work
>>   (Frederik Ramm)
>>5. Building_Canada_2020 (john whelan)
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 08:07:07 -0500
>> From: "Stewart C. Russell" 
>> To: talk-ca@openstreetmap.org
>> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Manitoba buildings, addresses and high school
>> work
>> Message-ID: <6d2d0e5d-8d9d-d528-c08e-05ee9debe...@gmail.com>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>>
>> On 2018-02-28 11:59 AM, James wrote:
>> > Before Scruss comes out and says it:
>>
>> … thanks, James! Been busy with the new job.
>>
>> > After license is approved …
>>
>> I'm not a lawyer, but the Brandon licence looks especially troublesome.
>> It's not based on any other licence I've seen. Most worryingly, it
>> requires that the person using/importing the data on behalf of a legal
>> entity has the capacity to legally bind that entity.
>>
>> In short, it means that if we import the Brandon data, we agree that we
>> have the legal capacity to respond to anything that Brandon could choose
>> to throw at us. Not one of us has that.
>>
>>  Stewart
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Message: 2
>> Date: Thu, 1 Mar 2018 09:25:54 -0500
>> From: Jonathan Brown 
>> To: James 
>> Cc: Rob Halko , "Brock Baker
>> " ,
>>