On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Grant Slater <[email protected]> wrote: > On 26 April 2011 22:06, Elizabeth Dodd <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Bluntly, >> CC-by-SA for geodata is fine here. It's good enough for our government, >> it's good enough for us. (Au government now is using CC-by for data). >> We believe in Share-Alike. Actually, we have been brought up to believe >> in share alike and helping each other, and that might be part of the >> reason you reach a brick wall on the change to a complex legal licence. >> > > Wait, why did the Australian government stop using CC-by-SA and move > to CC-by? I actually wasn't aware of this, maybe because CC-by-SA adds > needless restrictions and ambiguity on using the data?
Basically yes - having to choose between the different variants was causing alot of confusion to individual authors; see recommendations 6.3-6.7 @ http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/gov20taskforcereport/chapter5.htm > The AU government also provides the data under other specific terms on > request. Mike of LWG has made a formal request. Notes in today's LWG > meeting minutes. I can't see them on http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes yet but I'm afraid that horse has bolted on a Federal level; in February centralized government licencing was shut down as part of implementing the previously mentioned recommendations. You might be able to do so through the Office of Spatial Data Management but they had a 2 year working group on Creative Commons for geodata so I think they're pretty locked in. State governments however subscribe to the Australian Governments Open Access and Licensing (AusGOAL) Framework which is the Creative Commons variants plus a proprietary licence for paid data but they could possibly include ODbL. > I believe in Share-Alike too, I have invested 1000s of hours mapping > South Africa.* Thankfully ODbL is a Attribution and Share-Alike > license, with usage ambiguity removed. > > *sarcasm* But it all doesn't matter anyway, John Smith has degreed > that all Australian geodata is PD anyway. See: > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-April/007829.html A lot of people do take this issue seriously as it affects how you collate data from now on. The works dealt with were TV Program Guides (IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited ) and Phone Books (Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty Ltd) which are not considered as ‘original works’ because the creation of each publication did not involve ‘independent intellectual effort’ and/or the exercise of ‘sufficient effort of a literary nature’. The rigid process used to make a phone book especially did not allow the individual authors (phone company employees) to be creative ;) _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
