[talk-au] ODbL data.gov.au permission granted
mike at ayeltd.biz
Tue Nov 15 10:17:16 GMT 2011
On 31/10/2011 17:51, 80n wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 31, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Michael Collinson <mike at ayeltd.biz
> <mailto:mike at ayeltd.biz>> wrote:
> Could you please, for about the fifth time of asking, publish a
> copy the permission that you have received. If you have some
> reason that
> you can't then you need to explain yourself.
> A verbatim copy of the permission that we have received is here:
> You can see the drafting history using the View History button. It
> was created using the input and review of data.gov.au
> <http://data.gov.au> over a series of correspondence I had with
> them. I believe it is clear, and by doing it as a public document,
> transparent. They have reviewed and are happy with the final
> version, so earlier correspondence, as is usual in legal
> discussion and as waldo000000 points out, is now superseded.
> Are you saying that you published the information on the wiki page and
> *then* asked someone at data.gov.au <http://data.gov.au> to review it
> and give their assent? If so then please publish the email or letter
> that contains this affirmation. I think that is what we are looking for.
> And to touch upon other issues raised in this thread:
> 1) I generally take "yes" to mean "yes" rather than looking for
> reasons why it should mean no.
> The lack of evidence to support the claim that OSM have "explicit
> special permission..." is cause enough in this case to not take "yes"
> at face value.
There is no claim of special permission.
> 2) No preferential treatment has been given, if anyone else wants
> to do the right thing and ask for clarification for a specific use
> of data.gov.au <http://data.gov.au> data for other projects, write
> to them.
> And indeed Andrew Harvey did just that as he wrote here:
> The reply contained the statement:
> > "We do not consider that what we are providing is “special permission”
> As this directly contradicts the statement written on the wiki by
> yourself, and echoed in Grant's email, you can surely see why more
> information about this supposed arrangement would help to clarify matters.
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 data.gov.au.
If it helps, me formally affirm and represent what I have said before: I
have had a series of correspondance with data.gov.au 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
and that each dataset used is also listed here in the format /Dataset
Name, Date Published, License, Agency Name, originally retrieved from
http://data.australia.gov.au"/; 3) For public transparency, the
operative version of the statement is not in the correspondance but
directly drafted at
and actively reviewed by data.gov.au to their satisfaction.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au