<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 15/11/2011 11:52, Andrew Laughton wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGO_SpU9c7UWKHAdFVkMHJtK3Zwt4aBo-hbh9BFaPjV7oP32nA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite"><br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">I fail to see a
contradiction. If you are not sure about something, you
ask explicitly and get an explicit answer. That is what we got. That
is what is written on the wiki with the kind assistance of <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://data.gov.au/" target="_blank">data.gov.au</a>.<br>
If it helps, me formally affirm and represent what I have said before:
I have had a series of correspondance with <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://data.gov.au" target="_blank">data.gov.au</a> where: 1) I
have
explictly pointed out we are moving to another license specifically
written for open data, that it might not jive with CC-BY and so they
may not be happy with the provisions for downstream attributions, and
asked them if they could explictly give us permission to continue use
or if we should remove it; 2) The conclusion being yes, we can
"incorporate and publish such CC-BY licensed geographic coordinate
datasets under a free and open license, including the Open Database
License, provided that primary attribution is made here
[<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets"
target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets</a>]
and
that each dataset used is also listed here in the format <i>Dataset
Name, Date Published, License, Agency Name, originally retrieved from <a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://data.australia.gov.au"
rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://data.australia.gov.au</a>"</i>;
3) For public
transparency, the operative version of the statement is not in the
correspondance but directly drafted at
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets"
target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution#Australian_government_public_information_datasets</a>
and actively reviewed by <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://data.gov.au" target="_blank">data.gov.au</a> to their
satisfaction.<br>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
Hi Mike<br>
<br>
I might be able to help a little.<br>
The words "... provided that primary attribution is made ..."<br>
Would seem at first glance the exclude any license that does not
require attribution.<br>
<br>
Perhaps you could explain to us what happens if a third party takes OSM
data, and publishes it without any attribution at all.<br>
<br>
Would they be in violation of the Open Database
License ? If not, the problem is that you are now distributing
government data in violation of copyright law.<br>
<br>
Andrew.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Hi Andrew,<br>
<br>
Richard has just answered the direct question, and better than I can.
May I make a couple of other observations that may also help.<br>
<br>
First, The new OSM contributor terms were deliberately written so that
if anyone wants attribution, (you, me, but chiefly aimed at goverment
organisations making data available), then they can get it and it
survives any license that OSM uses, (even one without attribution!).
This was the key question I put to them, was this acceptable by itself?
and the answer was yes.<br>
<br>
Second, a personal perspective of one thing I've learnt slowly over the
last three years. Open IP data in particular, as compared to software
and general creative works such as photos and writings, needs
attribution breaking up into a series of levels and the original
publisher of data should state clearly what they want. I think
(personal view) that this underlies a lot of the travails we have had
and that reviews of Creative Commons and OpenDataCommons (ODbL)
licenses need to pay attention to it ... i.e. important no matter what
project you happen to be in. I started a paper <a
id="publishedDocumentUrl" class="tabcontent" target="_blank"
href="http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_103fdxjk3qt">http://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_103fdxjk3qt</a>
which went to Creative Commons as a way encapsulating some of our
experiences ... it is still very rough, but I am continuing to work it
as formal input to the CC 4 process. In summary, what I think is
eventually required is are license(s) whose attribution clauses clearly
allow or do not allow this:<br>
<br>
o OSM incorporates data.gov.au data into the OSM database. OSM
attributes data.gov.au on its web page, "primary" or "Level 1"
attribution. I think this is very important whether or not a legal
obligation.<br>
<br>
o Someone extracts some OSM data (one node or the whole thing, with or
without data.gov.au), and no matter how they do it, they get a either a
copy of OSM's web page or a link to it. This is "Level 2" attribution.
I feel that this is useful, practical but not essential.<br>
<br>
o That person or organisation mixes OSM data with their own and
publishes it. They Level 1 attribute OSM on their website. There is
now an attribution chain back to data.gov.au ... I think that is the
key thing. Level 3 attribution, providing data.gov.au attribution,
should not be required.<br>
<br>
o A new person then makes a map from the last set of data, they Level 1
attribute the last set. Here, OSM's attribution has also now directly
gone but remains in the chain and the Level 4 requirement of having to
attribute thousands and thousands on a single map is not an issue.<br>
<br>
Mike<br>
</body>
</html>