On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 1:00 PM Andrew Harvey <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 12:43, Jonathon Rossi <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I guess lawyers don't want to authorise and public servants don't want to >> sign anything that isn't written there, the reference material is all >> useful and explains everything but that isn't on the signing page. >> >> Maybe instead of this: >> > [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license as to >> OpenStreetMap and its >> > users with the understanding that the Open Database License 1.0 >> requires open access >> > or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap >> >> Something like this: >> [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license which >> prohibits downstream restrictions preventing OpenStreetMap data under Open >> Database License 1.0 to be distributed as a combined distribution >> containing CC BY 4.0 licensed data. CC BY 4.0 licensed data remains as >> such. >> >> Could be improved more, but a start. Thoughts? >> > > I usually send both the cover letting which explains the why and the > waiver form which is the action, and top it off with an email that also > summarises the issue. > > That said, I'd recommend passing feedback to the licensing working group > as they would need to sign off to any changes to the actual waiver form. > >> I had considered providing feedback to the Licensing WG a while back on this, but since I wasn't in contact with DNRM I don't think I had enough information to justify to them that this might help get them across the line. In your correspondence with Greg, do you know if he is responding or someone on his behalf? Do you have any other information on why they might be misunderstanding that their data needs to be relicensed for us to be able to use it? -- Jono
_______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
