Yeah pretty much, I interpret it as "We will not deviate from CC-BY 4.0".
On 12/03/18 14:37, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> Is that (second sentence) word for word the same response you got the
> first time, where they thought they'd have to relicense under the ODbL?
> P.S. sorry about not replying all with my last email.
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Joel H. <95.5.ra...@gmail.com
> <mailto:95.5.ra...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> OK everyone, Here is the feedback I got after asking for
> permission to use CC-BY 4.0 datasets:
> Thank you for your enquiry regarding use of the localities
> boundaries dataset in OpenStreetMap.
> The Department has given consideration to your request and
> advise that, consistent with Queensland Government policy, our
> data is provided under a CC:BY 4.0 licence. The Department
> will not provide the data under an Open Database licence. It
> is our belief that a CC:BY licence is sufficient for use of
> our data
> On 12/03/18 14:27, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>> Could you please share their response or paraphrase it so we can
>> all understand their reasons.
>> Thanks, Jono
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:24 PM Joel H. <95.5.ra...@gmail.com
>> <mailto:95.5.ra...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> I tried again, and got rejected again. I had contact with
>> someone behind a local GIS company who said he would try to
>> help. But I haven't heard back. So I've put it to rest for now...
>> I guess we should advocate for more compatibility with CC-BY
>> 4.0 in our licence.
>> On 12/03/18 13:35, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>>> 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
>>> <j...@jonorossi.com <mailto:j...@jonorossi.com>> 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
>>> 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
>>> - 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.
>>> <95.5.ra...@gmail.com <mailto:95.5.ra...@gmail.com>> 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