[talk-au] Explicit Permission to use NSW Land and Property Information data

[Andrew Harvey]

This conversation is quite scattered now but,

I've followed up with contact given in your letter (Diana Stewart) with my
concerns and questions. Specifically I've asked:

1. what does the statement "Where specific licence terms (such as Creative
> Commons) are applied to datasets, those licence terms shall prevail over
> any inconsistent provisions in this statement." mean? Because we need these
> additional permissions from LPI beyond the scope of the CC license to be
> legally binding so that we may use LPI data within OpenStreetMap. We need
> this additional permissions from LPI to prevail over the problematic
> clauses within the CC license.
>
> 2. "To ensure consumers are informed of the currency and accuracy of data,
> LPI asks that the date of extraction be marked in red." This requirement is
> difficult to implement for us due to the way we would like to use LPI data,
> furthermore if implemented it would be misleading. If the OpenStreetMap
> community were to include LPI data or derived data within OpenStreetMap
> then this would be an  ongoing adhoc inclusion of pieces of LPI data. As
> such, any single statement intending to indicated data currency wouldn't be
> accurate.
>
> 3. Could you please clarify that "on the 'Contributors' page of
> OpenStreetMap" refers to
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Australia and not
> https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright
>

I've asked this in the context of my pretext:

I am of the understanding that as it currently stands the Creative Commons
> Attribution 3.0 Australia license (
> https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/au/legalcode) isn't
> compatible with the terms we (OpenStreetMap) need for inclusion of such
> data or derived data in OpenStreetMap.
>
> For example the above CC license in clauses 4A(b),4A(e),4B(a) certain
> notices must be kept intact when we create new works derived from your CC
> licensed LPI data. However, OpenStreetMap has decided that this level of
> downstream attribution is too onerous (so for example if OpenStreetMap
> included some data from LPI and a 3rd party web site includes an
> OpenStreetMap map, that website shouldn't need to attribute LPI, rather
> they would only attribute OpenStreetMap and in tern OpenStreetMap would
> attribute LPI).
>
> Because of this, OpenStreetMap require specific explicit permission from
> the copyright owner that such method of attribution is acceptable since it
> is unclear if this is acceptable under the plan CC BY 3.0 AU license.
>
> Furthermore clause 4B(c) requires identification of changes made to the
> original work. This isn't practical for OpenStreetMap so we require that
> copyright holders grant us that we may simply state something such as "in
> part derived from...".
>

I want to make sure that we have solid legal foundations for this, and
would like to run it by the legal-talk list first for advice.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20151207/134fb721/attachment-0001.html>