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 <j...@jonorossi.com> 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 <inas66+...@gmail.com> 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 <j...@jonorossi.com> 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 <thesw...@gmail.com>
>>> 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 <j...@jonorossi.com>
>>>> 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
>>> Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
>>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
>>>
>>>
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

Reply via email to