<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 12.03.2018 um 11:47 schrieb Jonathon
Rossi:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGb9TQLTcarLgGz5pbFXE4W7cbLRKim415XP0TSWYof2Q72hsw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">Sorry Simon, I really didn't intend to make things
more complicated. I just wanted to ensure someone else doesn't
get caught in the future after thinking I was doing the right
thing, and no one else has done this each time this has come up
in the past.</div>
</blockquote>
Jonathon the effort is clearly appreciated. At the time the issue
was rather hotly debated and (as I wasn't really involved at the
time) we would likely need to ask Michael Collinson for the historic
information. <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGb9TQLTcarLgGz5pbFXE4W7cbLRKim415XP0TSWYof2Q72hsw@mail.gmail.com">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I've made your suggested change to the page in regards to
CC BY 4.0 datasets, I've also moved it to the bottom line of
the section since that made sense.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If we don't doubt the validity of the permission granted as
you mentioned we obviously don't know internal government
arrangements way back, then does that mean we'd allow people
to continue using the DNRM (and others) CC BY 2.5 datasets?</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
There are (at least) two aspects here:<br>
<br>
- has the DNRM explicitly made a statement on the validity of the
explicit permission from data.gov.au back then? If no, then I don't
see a reason to change our approach.<br>
- we have tightened our regime wrt CC BY 4.0 relative to CC BY 2.5,
because it is a significantly changed licence and a number of the
concerns we have with 4.0 don't exist in such a form in 2.5 (in
particular the for OSM very relevant section on database rights),
and to be consistent we've asked, going forward, for the equivalent
terms in older CC licenses to be waived too. We've however not asked
anybody to go back to CC BY 2.X sources from which we have received
permission in the past and assume that such permission continues to
be valid for the datasets it was given at the time.<br>
<br>
Simon <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGb9TQLTcarLgGz5pbFXE4W7cbLRKim415XP0TSWYof2Q72hsw@mail.gmail.com">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:17 PM Simon Poole <<a
href="mailto:simon@poole.ch" moz-do-not-send="true">simon@poole.ch</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="m_5320249899405761446moz-cite-prefix">Am
12.03.2018 um 11:13 schrieb Simon Poole:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"> <span
style="color:rgb(34,34,34);font-family:sans-serif;font-size:14px;font-style:normal;font-variant-ligatures:normal;font-variant-caps:normal;font-weight:400;letter-spacing:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;white-space:normal;word-spacing:0px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;display:inline!important;float:none"><br>
<br>
Making clear that we don't the validity of the
permission granted for the CC BY 2.5 datasets, but don't
extend it to covering the current ones and avoid
speculating on internal government arrangements way
back.<br>
</span><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"> That should have been:<br>
<br>
.. that we don't doubt the validity ..<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
Talk-au mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>