Have we necessarily exhausted all our options? I only ever asked DNRM, I know of other dataset from different agencies which is also CC-BY 4.0.
Also is it really needed to redact all that DCDB stuff? That was imported back when we had permission right? On 12/03/18 17:07, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > 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 > <mailto: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 > <http://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 > <mailto:inas66%2b...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > We need the right form of words. I completely agree we should > not rely on data.gov.au <http://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 > <mailto: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 > <http://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 > <http://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 <mailto: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 <mailto:j...@jonorossi.com>> wrote: > > The CC-BY 2.5 attribution was granted by the > data.gov.au <http://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 <mailto: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
