Nick Thank you for your interest in the topic and your support.
I'm the chair of the OSMF licence/legal working group and an Aussie ex-pat (very very ex) that lurks here are bit, and am fairly opinionated on the topic :-). As Phil has pointed out if you want to have a larger discussion the legal-talk mailing list is likely the best place, but you should know in advance that licence topics tend to lead to fairly heated discussions. I don't want to pre-empt any other larger discussion, but from my pov a licence of OGD needs to be somewhat different than a project like wikipedia or OpenStreetMap, the two big global community projects that consume and -produce- open data. I personally consider CC BY, CC BY-SA and the ODbL as not appropriate for government data, and I would suggest publishing on OGL terms without requiring downstream attribution for anything that you really want to be re-used. That said, publishing the data on ODbL terms or better ODC-By would without doubt make our life easier than the current widely used CC licences, which as you can see from my blog post that was pointed to, have a number of undesirable properties (for example: why would the Qld government want to stop Netflix from using something created from your data in a production?). Simon Am 28.04.2017 um 00:53 schrieb Nicholas G Lawrence: > > Hello Australia OSM, > > > > I am a spatial science officer in Qld Transport and Main Roads, > involved in the provision of Open Data for public consumption. > > > > Our data is generally released under a CC-BY license, but I have an > opportunity to make a case for the ODbL to be a license option. > Currently data custodians choose a license from a list of pre-approved > licenses, and I am hoping to add ODbL to that list. > > > > But first I have to put forward a clear case why this should be > considered. Is there a clear argument written down somewhere I can > refer to? > > > > Also, I am not clear on the incompatibilities between ODbL and > specific types of CC licenses. For example, is CC-BY compatible whilst > CC-BY-SA not compatible? How about CC-0? > > > > Thanks, > Nick Lawrence > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *********************************************************************** > WARNING: This email (including any attachments) may contain legally > privileged, confidential or private information and may be protected by > copyright. You may only use it if you are the person(s) it was > intended to be sent to and if you use it in an authorised way. No one > is allowed to use, review, alter, transmit, disclose, distribute, print > or copy this email without appropriate authority. > > If this email was not intended for you and was sent to you by mistake, > please telephone or email me immediately, destroy any hardcopies of > this email and delete it and any copies of it from your computer > system. Any right which the sender may have under copyright law, and > any legal privilege and confidentiality attached to this email is not > waived or destroyed by that mistake. > > It is your responsibility to ensure that this email does not contain > and is not affected by computer viruses, defects or interference by > third parties or replication problems (including incompatibility with > your computer system). > > Opinions contained in this email do not necessarily reflect the > opinions of the Department of Transport and Main Roads, > or endorsed organisations utilising the same infrastructure. > *********************************************************************** > > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
