I hope you don't mind me replying back on list and that it was just an accident not CCing the list.
Your interpretation makes sense to me the way you explained it, I hadn't noticed that detail. I assume you expect that if the data.gov.au team really meant to include other non-Australian Government agencies it would explicitly be "Australian Government and state and territory governments" or similar, at a minimum "government" being pluralised? Is your view that the only listed dataset that might be permissible is the ABS data, the one that is noted as a "maybe"? I'm reading between the lines and maybe airing dirty laundry, but is it the position of the OSMF that the permission is valid and your view that it isn't, which is why you manually monitor usage because you didn't feel like this discussion again and have better things to do? I've read quite a lot of the emails on this topic but definitely not all of them, so I apologise that I'm coming into this passionate topic fairly green. On Tue, Mar 13, 2018 at 3:29 PM Andrew Davidson <thesw...@gmail.com> wrote: > None of this changes the fundamental issue which is that the > Commonwealth cannot give permission to a third-party to use a state > owned dataset without that state delegating the authority. There is not > a single piece of evidence that this is the case and the burden of proof > would be on proving that they did rather than the other way around. > > As I've already said to Simon if you read the actual attribution > statement that was agreed on: > > https://email@example.com/msg07970.html > > it starts with "Contains data from Australian government public > information datasets". The key phrase is "Australian government" and > this has a specific meaning: > > > https://guides.service.gov.au/content-guide/terms-phrases/#australian-government > > Which shows that they were giving us permission to use the datasets > owned by the Commonwealth; which I am able to believe they may have been > able to do. If they were including the datasets owned by the states and > territories they would have required us to state "Contains data from > Australian Government and state and territory governments public > information datasets". > > > On 13/3/18 16:06, Jonathon Rossi wrote: > >> > >> On 13/3/18 10:32, Simon Poole wrote: > >>> you are assuming that > >>> data.gov.au received the data from the states on the same terms as > >>> everybody else, that really doesn't have to be so. > >> > >> What makes you think I'm assuming anything? To publish data on > >> data.gov.au an organization has to register > >> ( > >> > https://toolkit.data.gov.au/index.php?title=Starting_on_datagovau#Getting_an_Account > >> ) > >> and provide the following waiver: > >> > >> "On behalf of the <entity name>, I request a data publishing account on > >> data.gov.au. <entity name> will be responsible for the management of > >> this account and the data that is published using it. <entity name> will > >> notify the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet (DPMC) to any > >> changes in ownership of the account and of any issues if they arise. The > >> responsibility of publishing data appropriately, in accordance with > >> privacy, security and other relevant considerations rests entirely with > >> the data publisher and DPMC take no responsibility." > > > > > >> Not sure what part of that you think transfers any rights from the > >> holder to DPMC. > > > > > > However, isn't that assuming that the process of getting data on the web > > site prior to 2011 is the same as it is today. > > > > It appears data.gov.au was started under the Australian Government > > Information Management Office (AGIMO) which is still part of the > Department > > of Finance (known back then as the Department of Finance and > Deregulation), > > but is now run by the Digital Transformation Agency (under the Department > > of the Prime Minister and Cabinet), so that document has at least been > > changed since 2011 if not didn't exist back then. > > > > If it did exist and all data came through that waiver I would have > expected > > the then "Assistant Director, Gov 2.0 Strategy and Services (Manager > > data.gov.au), Department of Finance and Deregulation" (source: LinkedIn, > > not linking their profile) would have just responded that they don't own > or > > control the data and to go see the owner. > > > > Yes, it is possible that they didn't know what they were agreeing to or > > they didn't actually have permission under whatever arrangement was > agreed > > to with each stakeholder. However, if we dispute this person's agreement, > > then how do we trust each other permission/waiver we've got signed, how > do > > we know if the person is permitted to represent the government or > > organisation on this matter? > > > > After all this data is published under CC BY 2.5/3.0. > > > > That's putting it politely. There is a rather toxic stratum of > >> correspondence on talk-au around the period of the license change. > >> > >> As I said earlier this is a can of worm and I have been deliberately > >> leaving the Contributors page alone and just keeping an eye on what > >> people are importing into OSM. > > > > > > I obviously don't want this to become a toxic discussion again and > > understand there are differing opinions, but I don't think ignoring the > > problem is a good solution for OSM. Manually looking at every changeset > for > > data.gov.au sounds like a burden you shouldn't have to perform. > > > > Do you know of a way we could verify this permission without data.gov.au > > (DNRM or another on the list) just responding they know nothing about it > > and don't think it is valid because the source arrangement details are a > > decade old and people have moved on or forgotten? > > > > Many thanks everyone for the discussion. > > Jono > > >
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talkfirstname.lastname@example.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au