Thanks Andrew, and thanks again for flagging my use a few months back.

Can we once and for all publicly note the " permission can of
worms", even if that is simply adding to the existing Contributions page
text noting exactly what everyone "in the know" knows about the problem,
OSM contributors shouldn't have to search the mailing list for this info.

I've made the following addition to the wiki page:
> The explicit permission granted by the team (operated by the
Digital Transformation Agency) is no longer viewed as valid as there is no
evidence they had permission to grant us these rights. Permission to use
the following datasets at any time must be obtained directly from the
copyright owner (2018-03-12).

If this isn't appropriate, then I'm all ears.

Thanks again guys even though this isn't the outcome we wanted.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:30 PM Andrew Davidson <> wrote:

> Yeap, this has already been covered before:
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jonathon Rossi <>
> wrote:
>>  The CC-BY 2.5 attribution was granted by the team not DNRM
>> (or a former named department), so how relevant/legal do we think this is
>> now that we know DNRM's position on the matter who are the actual copyright
>> owner.
Talk-au mailing list

Reply via email to