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
Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
The answer from AGIMO (data.gov.au) will actually be irrelevant.
I was hoping that the original communications would make clear exactly
how relevant they are. At the moment we're all just guessing.
--
Sam Couter | mailto:s...@couter.id.au
OpenPGP
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 11:14 AM, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote:
Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
The answer from AGIMO (data.gov.au) will actually be irrelevant.
I was hoping that the original communications would make clear exactly
how relevant they are. At the moment we're all just
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
On 31 October 2011 11:18, 80n 80n...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Sam Couter s...@couter.id.au wrote:
Liz ed...@billiau.net wrote:
The answer from AGIMO (data.gov.au) will actually be irrelevant.
I was hoping that the original communications would make clear exactly
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 11:14 AM, Grant Slater
openstreet...@firefishy.com wrote:
80n you are not a member of the Australian community. You are here to
cause trouble and discontent within the Australian community along
with your forking friends
Dear Grant,
Please continue to offer 80n the
Let us bring back our presumption of good faith, shall we? Several
posters here have suggested that data.gov.au don't know what
permissions they have and what permissions they may grant. Another
has suggested that data.gov.au would be likely to pay attention to
every last detail of paperwork,
Would AU contributors please have a look at the Import Catalogue[1].
There are still some imports listed for Australia with incomplete
details. It would be good to have those details completed.
[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue
On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 4:30 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
After long email correspondence data.gov.au have viewed the
text of the attribution page[1] and they find it terrific.
[1]
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets
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
True, but that doesn't mean we need to use it. When they actually
bother to give the SI unit a name, I'll think about using it. In the
meantime, the named metric unit of volume is the litre (L), and you
can use it with all the prefixes, including KL (or cubic metre), ML
etc. The prefixes don't
21 matches
Mail list logo
