To give a bit more context and perhaps point out a way to resolve this without every thing blowing up:
At the time the permission from data.gov.au was obtained, OSM was in the final stages of the licence change. Normally the LWG wouldn't have become directly involved at all in the matter of licensing national datasets, just as it is now only involved on request in late stage vetting. However at the time there was a die hard group of people that wanted to derail the licence change at essentially all costs, and unluckily some of the louder voices were Australian. The people involved jumped on use of CC BY 2.* datasets from Australian government sources in OSM as one of the major arguments against the licence change and nobody local seemed to be willing to resolve the issue, as a result the LWG engaged directly with data.gov.au. Now it should be pointed out that, as I've said previously, the major concern, and why we wanted permission in the first place is that the ODbL doesn't require downstream attribution on derivative databases and works, it just requires a pointer back to the source of the database. That is the reason why OSM, in one way or the other, has always required that data sources that have licensed their data on CC BY 2.X/3.0 terms agree that indirect attribution via the website or the contributors page is sufficient. I have yet to hear that such agreement has been withheld, as clearly anything else would be totally impractical. It should be noted that we didn't require downstream attribution even when OSM data was licensed CC BY SA 2.0, and we would have needed exactly the same permission even without the licence change, it was simply the event which made these issues surface. Now going forward, if there is local consensus that the permission from data.gov.au is not enough, there is no reason that the local community can't go back to the relatively small number of CC BY 2.X/3.0 sources and ask for agreement that the attribution that we have been providing all the time on the contributors page is sufficient. That doesn't resolve the issue with CC BY 4.0 datasets* which is, as said, a different license. and where we really need the waivers, but would keep all past contributions safe. Simon * a small note on the side, when discussing ODbL and CC BY 4.0 compatibility with Creative Commons, representatives of the organisation voiced the opinion that most of the rewrite was just clarification of terms that the previous versions contained, in particular that the attribution requirement had always allowed indirect attribution if it was the appropriate choice. Am 13.03.2018 um 09:45 schrieb Andrew Davidson: > On 13/03/18 17:16, Jonathon Rossi wrote: >> I hope you don't mind me replying back on list and that it was just >> an accident not CCing the list. > > No, that was a deliberate attempt to take this discussion off-list as > I'm not sure that there is much point in raking over old mistakes > unless we are trying to learn from our mistakes. > >> >> 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 <http://data.gov.au> team really meant to include other >> non-Australian Government agencies it would explicitly be "Australian >> Government and state and territory governments" > > Yes. In light of comments like this: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07906.html > > we should be assuming that the attribution statement is precisely what > the AGIMO meant it to be. > >> or similar, at a minimum "government" being pluralised? > > No. They wouldn't have referred to Australian governments to mean both > tiers as the style guide requires the separate mention of Australian > Government (guess it's because they don't want to be seen as being on > the same level as the states). > >> Is your view that the only listed dataset that might be permissible >> is the ABS data, the one that is noted as a "maybe"? > > There is this message: > > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg07976.html > > but I can't find any subsequent response to say if the ABS data was > ever listed on data.gov.au. If anybody was mapping back in 2011 and > knows it would be good to find out. > >> >> 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. > > It's not a question of validity rather of scope. Now I can believe > that the AGIMO might be authorised to speak on Commonwealth owned > datasets, but there is no way that they were in a position to be > making decisions about state or territory datasets. Having been > involved in this relationship from the perspective of a state > government department I know that when we put datasets up on > data.gov.au we are in no way giving the Feds a say on how other people > use our datasets. It's our IP and if you want to talk about it you > should be talking to us. > >> which is why you manually monitor usage because you didn't feel like >> this discussion again and have better things to do? >> > > Can, worms, sticks and bears. I was hoping that if we stopped people > adding more stuff we could just quietly let things be. As others have > pointed out there is a lot of very deeply embedded data from these > state datasets that would be very difficult to remove. > > _______________________________________________ > Talk-au mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
