Did you get a response from DNRM? Are you still in talks with them?

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:07 PM Jonathon Rossi <> wrote:

> Great to hear Joel, I was actually wondering last night if you'd already
> sent this off.
> I'm not an expert in this area so happy for others to correct me, however
> my reading of your description of the second section that DNRM needs to
> waive doesn't explain to someone not familiar with what we are requesting,
> I think DNRM staff are likely to think this is still too hard and push back
> yet again. I like Andrew Harvey's description here
> <>
> of both sections including the extended part of section 2, maybe he will
> give permission to use his description.
> Regarding who has signed the waiver:
> - According to the contributors page for BCC
> <>
>  it
> appears they haven't signed the waiver because it didn't exist until early
> 2017 but it appears they gave explicit permission to incorporate and
> publish their CC-BY data under an ODbL, more than the waiver requires
> - The explicit permission from NSW Land and Property Information sounds
> the same as the BCC one giving more permission than OSMF now needs
> - The NSW Geographical Name Register have signed the waiver
> <>
> - Victoria DELWP have signed the waiver
> <>
> - SA and MRWA seem to have explicitly agreed with the same sort of thing
> BCC and NSW LPI did
> I don't know if there was some sort of informal/old waiver or explicit
> permission template because the older ones are pretty similar, they
> obviously aren't explicit about Section 2(a)(5)(B) though. If that is the
> case I'd amend your list of who has signed the waiver, maybe even consider
> linking to the NSW GNR and Victoria DELWP signed waivers proving the claim.
> Hope that helps, Jono
> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:09 PM Joel H. <> wrote:
>> Hi All! I have made a response to DNRM, regarding the licensing for
>> locality boarders. Please give a critique before I send!
>> *Hello [NAME],*
>> *Thank you for your time and consideration regarding the approval for
>> OpenStreetMap.*
>> *As a response to your concern over the licence change, it isn’t
>> necessary for DNRM data to be re-licenced as a result of usage in
>> OpenStreetMap. It’s simply about signing a waiver to clarify minor
>> differences in licences. Approving usage in OSM shouldn’t tamper with the
>> goals of DNRM since OSM uses a very similar licence with many of the same
>> philosophical views.*
>> *The first part that needs approval is whether or not you think our
>> method of Attribution, is sufficient with the “reasonable manner”
>> requirement of the CC-BY 4.0. We credit sources through the following page:
>> <>, It’s also possible to
>> add sources to the objects which are DNRM’s data.*
>> *The second is to waive Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC*
>> *BY 4.0 license as to OpenStreetMap and its users with the understanding
>> that*
>> *the Open Database License 1.0 requires open access or parallel
>> distribution of*
>> *OpenStreetMap data.*
>> *Many organisations such as Brisbane City Council and New South Wales
>> Land and Property Information, have already given permission in the same
>> way that DNRM could.*
>> *I hope you take the time to reconsider. I’ve attached the PDF that is
>> needed for your review, keep in touch.*
>> *Joel Hansen*
>> *Local OpenStreetMap Editor*
>> _______________________________________________
>> Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au mailing list

Reply via email to