<div dir="ltr">Wow, great responses everyone - much appreciated.<div><br></div><div>Simon Poole:</div><div>><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">Before this discussion goes off on a tangent, which version of CC-by are they currently using?</span></div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/" target="_blank">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/</a></div><div><br></div><div>You can see this for instance at: <a href="https://www.data.vic.gov.au/data/dataset/vicmap-hydro-connector-watercourse" target="_blank">https://www.data.vic.gov.au/data/dataset/vicmap-hydro-connector-watercourse</a></div><div><br></div><div>Richard Fairhurst:</div><div>><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">In which case they've chosen the wrong licence.</span></div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">>If you license your work under a permissive, attribution-only licence</span><br style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">>(CC-BY), then you are automatically giving permission for it to be</span><br style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">>relicensed under a share-alike, attribution-only licence (CC-BY-SA). You</span><br style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">>can't license under CC-BY and say "no-one may incorporate this data into a</span><br style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">>dataset with share-alike restrictions". That would defeat the point of a</span><br style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><div>Thanks for confirming that. I was a bit confused by the term in the CC-BY deed:</div><div><br></div><div>>Y<span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,verdana,sans-serif;line-height:16px">ou may not apply legal terms or </span><a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/#" style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(17,17,17);font-weight:bold;font-family:arial,verdana,sans-serif;line-height:16px" target="_blank">technological measures</a><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,verdana,sans-serif;line-height:16px"> that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,verdana,sans-serif;line-height:16px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:13px;color:rgb(51,51,51);font-family:arial,verdana,sans-serif;line-height:16px">Which could be interpreted to mean you can't apply CC-BY-SA which "restricts others" from using the data and not sharing it, which "the license" (CC-BY) "permits". But CC's wiki explicitly says this is ok:</span></div><div><br></div><div><a href="https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions#If_I_derive_or_adapt_material_offered_under_a_Creative_Commons_license.2C_which_CC_license.28s.29_can_I_use.3F" target="_blank">https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/Frequently_Asked_Questions#If_I_derive_or_adapt_material_offered_under_a_Creative_Commons_license.2C_which_CC_license.28s.29_can_I_use.3F</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>><span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:20px">When creating an adaptation of material under the license identified in the lefthand column [BY], you may license your contributions to the adaptation under one of the licenses indicated on the top row [BY-SA] if the corresponding box is green [it is].</span></div><div><span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:20px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:20px">Richard again:</span></div><div><span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:20px">></span><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">Where "etc." means "TomTom". There are only four worldwide geodata </span><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">providers. It's hardly a slippery slope of individual permissions.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">Good point. Although hypothetically there could be non-worldwide providers.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br></span><div><span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:20px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue',Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:14px;line-height:20px">Andrew Turner:</span></div><div><font face="Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif"><span style="font-size:14px;line-height:20px">></span></font><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">So a simpler route here would be to suggest "upgrading" to use CC-By 4.0? </span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">Getting DELWP (and most likely the rest of the Victorian government) to switch to CC-BY 4.0, let alone CC-0, would be a huge task that would probably involve all kinds of bureaucracy, working groups, etc etc.</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">Richard Best:</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">[a long, very helpful email currently stuck in moderation]</span></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">></span><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">Perhaps helpfully, there is a New Zealand Government precedent for the situation you're facing here. Land Information New Zealand licenses a wide range of geospatial data under CC-BY licences. However, it has also allowed data to be made available on OSM under the ODbL. See here for details:</span><a href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/LINZ" target="_blank" style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/LINZ</a></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px">>I suggest you draw the Victorian State Government's attention to the approach taken by Land Information in New Zealand, with a view to asking the Victorian State Government to take the same approach. I completely understand their position of not wanting to "get into creating one-off variations for every potential user with a preference" but I think it's important to appreciate that we're talking here about a global project which has decided on the ODbL, that it would be extremely difficult to change the current regime to another one and that there is no real downside to the Victorian State Government dual-licensing its data, once under CC-BY and separately under the ODbL (or, actually, allowing OSMF to license under the ODbL). It's perfectly entitled to do that and people who want to use the data directly from the Victorian State Government's site under CC-BY can always do so. Most significantly, dual-licensing under CC-BY (via a government site) and the ODbL (via OSM) allows the data to be used in a wider range of contexts and for it to be mashed up with other rich datasets already in OSM or that may be added to OSM in the future. Allowing this could result in cultural, environmental, economic or social benefits for Australians. This is all entirely consistent with the rationale for open licensing in the first place.</span><br></div><div><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"><br></span></div><div><div>Wow. Hard to believe that New Zealand open licensed their data 7 years ago. Maybe this will be the precedent we need. That's really an excellent, well-worded summary. Would it be alright with you if I CC'ed you in my next response to them (which they have asked to be directed to *their* legal team...)?</div></div><div><br></div><div>Steve</div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Simon Poole <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:simon@poole.ch" target="_blank">simon@poole.ch</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Hi Steve<br>
<br>
Before this discussion goes off on a tangent, which version of CC-by
are they currently using?<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
Simon</font></span><div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<div>Am 30.08.2015 um 17:14 schrieb Steve
Bennett:<br>
</div>
</div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div><div class="h5">
<div dir="ltr">Hi all,
<div> I've been trying to convince the state government of
Victoria (southeast Australia) to allow their VicMap raw data
to be imported into OSM. It's currently CC-BY, and they've
told me they're happy in principle for it to be used this way,
but they're uncomfortable making the recommended statement
"DELWP has no objections to geodata derived in part from
Vicmap, either traced from Vicmap map products, or directly
from spatial extracts, being incorporated into the
OpenStreetMap project geodata database and released under a
free and open license".</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Specifically, they don't think ODbL is as "free and open"
as CC-BY, and they don't particularly want to make a one-off
statement for OSM.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>>The only other requirement is not to apply legal terms
or technological measures that legally restrict others from
doing anything the license permits. If the ODbL is more
restrictive than our CC by Attribution this presents a problem
for OSM, not for us. My initial response is that we wouldn't
want OSM to apply a more restrictive license than ours, and in
respect of the statement Steve wants us to provide, DELWP
doesn't want to get into creating one-off variations for every
potential user with a preference - Google, HERE, etc. </div>
<div>...</div>
<div><font color="#000000"><br>
</font></div>
<div><font color="#000000">><font size="2" face="Calibri">We
believe the CC by Attribution appropriate to sufficiently
and equitably provide our data to all/anyone, and if Steve
is concerned he should take it up with OSM. I'll refer it
to Legal (not ours, DataVic's) if he wants to pursue it
further.</font><span style="font-size:12.8000001907349px"> </span></font></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It's all getting quite subtle and possibly out of my depth.
I'm not sure if the concern is a misunderstanding about the
implications of dual licensing, a philosophical objection to
"free" licences that impose share-alike restrictions like
ODbL, or something different.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I wonder if there are any expert licence negotiators here
who might be able to get involved in the discussion. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks very much,</div>
<div>Steve</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
</div></div><span class=""><pre>_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
<a href="mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank">legal-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk</a>
</pre>
</span></blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
legal-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org">legal-talk@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>