I’ve looked through a number of the “open data policy” documents published by different Queensland government departments, and I’ve noticed that a lot of them contain references to the “Open Data Institute Queensland”. I’ve searched for their website, and it’s here: https://theodi.org.au/
Looking at their mission statement: “We are a pioneer node of the Open Data Institute. Pioneer nodes bring together communities, host events, showcase open data use cases, and help promote awareness and understanding of open data.” I’m wondering if it might be worthwhile to contact them, lay out the problem OSM has with utilizing data published under CC BY 4.0 and get them to help advocate the granting of the waiver for us, instead of us trying to convince every single data stakeholder directly. Looking wider, behind the Australian Open Data Institute stands the international Open Data Institute: https://theodi.org/ As this CC BY 4.0 issue is not just Australian in Nature, it might make sense for the appropriate working group at OSM to get in contact with them and try to get them to publicly advocate for granting the necessary waiver, not even specifically to OSM, but make it a general “CC BY 4.0 vs ODbL” compatibility waiver. Cheers, Thorsten From: Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, 12 March 2018 22:23 To: Simon Poole <[email protected]> Cc: [email protected] Subject: Re: [talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback Cheers Simon, that makes sense. I have to defer to those who have contacted DNRM via private email whether DNRM have made any explicit remarks over the previous permission. I was initially getting the feeling from some comments that there was some legal evidence, but I've not seen anything. I guess since there isn't any legal evidence, that is the reason nothing was changed on the contributors page, at least now that we don't have permission to use the CC BY 4.0 data that is explicitly noted. I'm glad we've got a clear picture of what is allowed and what isn't at this point in time. @AndrewH that looks great, once the page has got a heap of green it'll be useful. I noticed you are missing the BCC datasets, although I've not used them. On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:57 PM Simon Poole <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Am 12.03.2018 um 11:47 schrieb Jonathon Rossi: Sorry Simon, I really didn't intend to make things more complicated. I just wanted to ensure someone else doesn't get caught in the future after thinking I was doing the right thing, and no one else has done this each time this has come up in the past. Jonathon the effort is clearly appreciated. At the time the issue was rather hotly debated and (as I wasn't really involved at the time) we would likely need to ask Michael Collinson for the historic information. I've made your suggested change to the page in regards to CC BY 4.0 datasets, I've also moved it to the bottom line of the section since that made sense. If we don't doubt the validity of the permission granted as you mentioned we obviously don't know internal government arrangements way back, then does that mean we'd allow people to continue using the DNRM (and others) CC BY 2.5 datasets? There are (at least) two aspects here: - has the DNRM explicitly made a statement on the validity of the explicit permission from data.gov.au <http://data.gov.au> back then? If no, then I don't see a reason to change our approach. - we have tightened our regime wrt CC BY 4.0 relative to CC BY 2.5, because it is a significantly changed licence and a number of the concerns we have with 4.0 don't exist in such a form in 2.5 (in particular the for OSM very relevant section on database rights), and to be consistent we've asked, going forward, for the equivalent terms in older CC licenses to be waived too. We've however not asked anybody to go back to CC BY 2.X sources from which we have received permission in the past and assume that such permission continues to be valid for the datasets it was given at the time. Simon On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:17 PM Simon Poole <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Am 12.03.2018 um 11:13 schrieb Simon Poole: Making clear that we don't the validity of the permission granted for the CC BY 2.5 datasets, but don't extend it to covering the current ones and avoid speculating on internal government arrangements way back. That should have been: .. that we don't doubt the validity .. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
