<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>The text in the waiver referencing the ODbL is there so that it
is clear that we are not proposing completely waiving the
restrictions on DRM use (though for produced works it does
essentially amount to that, but not for the data itself).</p>
<p>Why doesn't anybody else (outside of OSM) have an issue with the
terms that we are asking to be waived? Because they simply ignore
them. <br>
</p>
<p>I have yet to see any data project proprietary, closed or open
that actually conveys this correctly to their users (CC BY 4.0
IMHO actually rules out using so licensed data in closed
projects). Given that the department in question and the other
distributors of data on CC BY terms must be aware that the
relevant terms are as a rule ignored, you would think that giving
a positive answer to an organisation that is so polite to ask
before using the data would just be a formality, but it seems not.</p>
<p>Simon<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 16.09.2019 um 04:42 schrieb Jonathon
Rossi:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGb9TQLjg6SWvdiYutVeUyiFE7Lc55=_PQ11pargMEqvGD0xaQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>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.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Maybe instead of this:<br>
> [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0
license as to OpenStreetMap and its<br>
> users with the understanding that the Open Database
License 1.0 requires open access<br>
> or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Something like this:</div>
<div>[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. </div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div>Could be improved more, but a start. Thoughts?</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:03 PM Andrew Harvey <<a
href="mailto:andrew.harvey4@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">andrew.harvey4@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:48, Jonathon
Rossi <<a href="mailto:jono@jonorossi.com"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">jono@jonorossi.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I agree that neither side is likely change
their position.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Could we propose (to OSMF) new wording for an
updated waiver that makes it clearer, the
attribution half doesn't seem like a problem, its
the second half which mentions ODbL even though
the cover letter block explains it they aren't
signing that page. When we were communicating with
DNRM early last year they do appear to think that
they need to relicense under the ODbL, and I can
now sort of see how the waiver could be read that
way.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I think OSMF's blog post, the cover letter and the
waiver form are very clear. What changes would you
propose?<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I got the impression as well, especially with the
reply "The department will not provide the data under
an ODbl licence." I did try to explain that they don't
need to relicense the data under ODbL and that we are
just asking for one exception to CC BY in order to be
compatible with ODbL.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Waiver:</div>
<div>> [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the
CC BY 4.0 license as to OpenStreetMap and its<br>
> users with the understanding that the Open
Database License 1.0 requires open access<br>
> or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>CCBY4 Clause:</div>
<div>> <u>No downstream restrictions</u>. You
may not offer or impose any additional or
different</div>
<div>> terms or conditions on, or apply any
Effective Technological Measures to, the</div>
<div>> Licensed Material if doing so restricts
exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient</div>
<div>> of the Licensed Material.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>That's it, as I understand it ODbL says you can
provide data with these technical restrictions so long
as a parallel version is made available without the
technical restrictions. CC BY says you can't have any
technical restrictions, even if you make a parallel
version without the technical restrictions.</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">Jono</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>