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

[Andrew Harvey]

I've received a response from LPI, which is at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/New_South_Wales_Government_Data.

Based on it I believe this is sufficient for people to include data
and derived data from LPI's CC BY 3.0 AU web services within
OpenStreetMap. Such inclusion of data doesn't affect the ability of
OSM to publish OSM under the ODbL so long as the attribution remains
as per the letter.

Since the response I got is slightly less ambiguous I've replaced the
attribution section at
https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#New_South_Wales_Government_data
with the response I got.

On 7 December 2015 at 14:45, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com> 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.