I'm glad you mentioned that Ian, because I started looking at what we'd have to "redact" and it is very mixed up with data from DCDB and survey, so we'd loose heaps.
https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=Natural+Resources+and+Mines#values https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=Environment+and+Resource+Management#values https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=dcdb#values On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:02 PM Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> wrote: > Thanks Ian, that makes sense, glad to get a few more people involved in > this discussion. > > With the comment in mind I've amended the text to this for now: > > The explicit permission granted by the data.gov.au 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 at that point in > time. Permission to use the following datasets in the future must be > obtained directly from the copyright owner (2018-03-12). > > On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:59 PM Ian Sergeant <[email protected]> wrote: > >> We need the right form of words. I completely agree we should not rely >> on data.gov.au permission for any new datasets. >> >> However, I'm not sure we want words that would give someone justification >> to go down the redaction path for existing data sets. We were given >> permission by one arm of the government, about data owned by another arm, >> and we relied on that in good faith. We stopped when we had information >> suggesting anything to the contrary. >> >> Ian. >> On 12 March 2018 at 17:41, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Andrew, and thanks again for flagging my use a few months back. >>> >>> Can we once and for all publicly note the "data.gov.au 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 data.gov.au 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 <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Yeap, this has already been covered before: >>>> >>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-March/011291.html >>>> >>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> The CC-BY 2.5 attribution was granted by the data.gov.au 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 >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au >>> >>>
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
