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:
>>
>>         Hi,
>>
>>         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:
>>>         Joel,
>>>
>>>         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
>>>             
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/df/NSW_GNB_170427_OpenStreetMap.pdf>
>>>             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
>>>             
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.brisbane.qld.gov.au_explicit_permission>
>>>  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
>>>             
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/df/NSW_GNB_170427_OpenStreetMap.pdf>
>>>             - Victoria DELWP have signed the waiver
>>>             
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/e/ed/Vicmap_CCBYPermission_OSM_Final_Jan2018_Ltr.pdf>
>>>             - 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:
>>>                 http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors
>>>                 <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors>,
>>>                 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@openstreetmap.org
>>>                 <mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
>>>                 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>                 <https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au>
>>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jono

_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Reply via email to