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

[Warin]

I am removing my changes that used LPI data .. I have no faith that the 
data will remain available.

I would think that questions would be better placed here or sent to cleary.
The possibility that numerous people would contact LPI as participants 
of OSM may lead LPI to see OSM as not worth engaging with due to the 
'noise' that arises.

Hopefully the same will not occur with forth coming the Federal 
Government release. And that wont be imagery but POI data so maybe seen 
as less usefull.

  On 7/12/2015 2:45 PM, Andrew Harvey wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20151208/8e882c38/attachment.html>