Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 18:54, Simon Poole wrote: > The text in the waiver referencing the ODbL is there so that it is clear > that we are not proposing completely waiving the restrictions on DRM use > (though for produced works it does essentially amount to that, but not for > the data itself).

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

Thanks for jumping in Simon. Saves me digging through heaps of old threads. On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 6:53 PM Simon Poole wrote: > Why doesn't anybody else (outside of OSM) have an issue with the terms > that we are asking to be waived? Because they simply ignore them. > > I have yet to see any

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

It should really be clear from the blog post, but just to clarify: the interpretation of the CC BY licences that we based our guidance on is CCs reading of the licence and the result of discussion with CC, not something that the LWG invented. Simon Am 16.09.2019 um 10:27 schrieb Andrew Harvey:

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 18:07, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > True, but that quote was that they wouldn't relicense under the ODbL. I > hadn't really thought about it as relicensing, but by definition removing a > clause would be a modified license. Interesting that heaps of other > agencies are

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 3:55 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: > I have no reason to think otherwise, but would it really matter...? > Was just wondering if some sort of department policy was written up to handle likely multiple emails about this topic with a templated email response, or if the decision

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 15:31, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > I had considered providing feedback to the Licensing WG a while back on > this, but since I wasn't in contact with DNRM I don't think I had enough > information to justify to them that this might help get them across the > line. In your

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:00 PM Andrew Harvey wrote: > On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 12:43, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > >> I guess lawyers don't want to authorise and public servants don't want to >> sign anything that isn't written there, the reference material is all >> useful and explains everything

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 12:43, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > I guess lawyers don't want to authorise and public servants don't want to > sign anything that isn't written there, the reference material is all > useful and explains everything but that isn't on the signing page. > > Maybe instead of this:

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 12:41, Graeme Fitzpatrick wrote: > With regard to my ongoing issues with GCCC, the latest obstacle is because > there are 2 online versions of CC BY 3.0 - they apparently say the same > thing, but are formatted differently, which was enough to throw things into > utter

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

I guess lawyers don't want to authorise and public servants don't want to sign anything that isn't written there, the reference material is all useful and explains everything but that isn't on the signing page. Maybe instead of this: > [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

With regard to my ongoing issues with GCCC, the latest obstacle is because there are 2 online versions of CC BY 3.0 - they apparently say the same thing, but are formatted differently, which was enough to throw things into utter confusion :-( Their latest: "I need to engage our legal team to

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:48, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > I agree that neither side is likely change their position. > > Could we propose (to OSMF) new wording for an updated waiver that makes it > clearer, the attribution half doesn't seem like a problem, its the second > half which mentions ODbL

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

I agree that neither side is likely change their position. Could we propose (to OSMF) new wording for an updated waiver that makes it clearer, the attribution half doesn't seem like a problem, its the second half which mentions ODbL even though the cover letter block explains it they aren't

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:07, Greg Lauer wrote: > Just so I am clear on this issue. We are not asking DERM to change the > current CC4 licence. We are asking DERM to give us formal permission to use > the data. This can be as simple as an email from a responsible party at > DERM giving us

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

Just so I am clear on this issue. We are not asking DERM to change the current CC4 licence. We are asking DERM to give us formal permission to use the data. This can be as simple as an email from a responsible party at DERM giving us permission. Am I interpreting this correctly? Greg On Mon, Sep

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

I don't think OSMF will change this requirement, as the reasons for the waiver are detailed in the blog post Mateusz linked to, https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ are pretty compelling. There had been some hope that CC BY 4.0 sources would be directly > compatible with

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 21:02, Andrew Harvey wrote: > On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 18:05, Mateusz Konieczny > wrote: > >> See https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ >> >> CC BY 4.0 requires waiver >> >> The additional text is confirmation that it is >> actually released under

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 18:05, Mateusz Konieczny wrote: > See https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ > > CC BY 4.0 requires waiver > > The additional text is confirmation that it is > actually released under this licence > and that personal confirmation is not required. >

Re: [talk-au] QTOPO online maps

15 Sep 2019, 08:56 by graemefi...@gmail.com: > QTOPO copyright > https://www.dnrme.qld.gov.au/home/legal/copyright > >  is listed as CC BY 4.0 > & includes: "> Under this licence you are free to use this information in > accordance with the

[talk-au] QTOPO online maps

On the subject of what can we use, I've been looking (only looking & sometimes confirming that what I thought is correct!) at the QTOPO map http://qtopo.dnrm.qld.gov.au/Mobile/ I know we have Qld Globe listed on the Data Catalogue as "Appears to not be under an open license" but QTOPO appears to