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, and certainly intended to credit Douglas Adams correctly :-)
I, and LWG, presume that data.gov.au do in fact have all of their licensing ducks in a row. And that they took their time in completing the discussion with LWG and gave it the sober governmental reflection that it deserved. LWG is unaware of any Australian OSM contributors having contacted their various government agencies to request permission for inclusion of that data in OSM. So the LWG contacted data.gov.au and data.gov.au think that having their data in OSM is a good thing. Licenses and CTs and all. 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 _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
