[talk-au] Reassurance and Licensing
Alex (Maxious) Sadleir
maxious at gmail.com
Wed Apr 27 05:42:22 BST 2011
On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 8:01 AM, Grant Slater
<openstreetmap at firefishy.com> wrote:
> On 26 April 2011 22:06, Elizabeth Dodd <edodd at billiau.net> wrote:
>> CC-by-SA for geodata is fine here. It's good enough for our government,
>> it's good enough for us. (Au government now is using CC-by for data).
>> We believe in Share-Alike. Actually, we have been brought up to believe
>> in share alike and helping each other, and that might be part of the
>> reason you reach a brick wall on the change to a complex legal licence.
> Wait, why did the Australian government stop using CC-by-SA and move
> to CC-by? I actually wasn't aware of this, maybe because CC-by-SA adds
> needless restrictions and ambiguity on using the data?
Basically yes - having to choose between the different variants was
causing alot of confusion to individual authors; see recommendations
6.3-6.7 @ http://www.finance.gov.au/publications/gov20taskforcereport/chapter5.htm
> The AU government also provides the data under other specific terms on
> request. Mike of LWG has made a formal request. Notes in today's LWG
> meeting minutes.
I can't see them on
http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes yet but I'm
afraid that horse has bolted on a Federal level; in February
centralized government licencing was shut down as part of implementing
the previously mentioned recommendations. You might be able to do so
through the Office of Spatial Data Management but they had a 2 year
working group on Creative Commons for geodata so I think they're
pretty locked in. State governments however subscribe to the
Australian Governments Open Access and Licensing (AusGOAL) Framework
which is the Creative Commons variants plus a proprietary licence for
paid data but they could possibly include ODbL.
> I believe in Share-Alike too, I have invested 1000s of hours mapping
> South Africa.* Thankfully ODbL is a Attribution and Share-Alike
> license, with usage ambiguity removed.
> *sarcasm* But it all doesn't matter anyway, John Smith has degreed
> that all Australian geodata is PD anyway. See:
A lot of people do take this issue seriously as it affects how you
collate data from now on. The works dealt with were TV Program Guides
(IceTV Pty Limited v Nine Network Australia Pty Limited ) and Phone
Books (Telstra Corporation Limited v Phone Directories Company Pty
Ltd) which are not considered as ‘original works’ because the creation
of each publication did not involve ‘independent intellectual effort’
and/or the exercise of ‘sufficient effort of a literary nature’. The
rigid process used to make a phone book especially did not allow the
individual authors (phone company employees) to be creative ;)
More information about the Talk-au