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
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
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
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
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:
[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
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.
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
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
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
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
...@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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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:
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
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.
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
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,
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:
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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).
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
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
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
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
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!
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,
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
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
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?
49 matches
Mail list logo
