[talk-au] CC 4.0 was Re: Response regarding use of PSMA Administrative Boundaries (Australia)

[cleary]

I have had further contact with the Spatial Unit at the Department of
Prime Minister and Cabinet regarding the incompatibility of CC-BY and
ODbL licences.  I acknowledged their previous response but asked
politely and respectfully whether it might be possible to review the
situation in the circumstances. An interim response has been received
that it is being looked at again. If we get another refusal, then I
think that is the final answer.

In regard to the Australian Privacy Principles, I think they have
responded to our concern. On this issue, the earlier response stated
very clearly that "We can also confirm that OpenStreetMap is not
responsible for the actions of your downstream users."

The Australian Privacy Principles outline how large  organisations must
handle, use and manage personal information. Section 6 of the Privacy
Act 1988, under which the Privacy Principles are issued, defines
"personal information " as "information or an opinion about an
identified individual, or an individual who is reasonably identifiable
.. "  To the best of my knowledge, OSM does not collect or use personal
information about identifiable individuals, except those of us who are
contributors to the map or wiki and, even then, minimal information is
held and I am not aware that OSM is in any danger of breaching the
Principles. Even so, I don't think OSMF has anywhere near the $3 million
annual turnover that would make it subject to the legal requirements of
the Principles.  Google and many other corporations operating in
Australia would however be bound by the Principles, are much more
involved in collecting data about individuals, and therefore may have
more to worry about.

Data from Government sources could also be accompanied by requirements
that data not be used to commit other offences either, such as murder or
robbery. If someone used a map to plan a murder or robbery, no court
would accept a defence that the mapmaker had contributed to the crime by
publishing the map. Same with the Privacy Principles. In my opinion, the
reason that specific attention is drawn to them is that they are a
relatively new concept and privacy issues are very topical at the
moment, whereas laws about murder and robbery are better known. Further
we have the assurance from the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet
that OSM is not responsible for the actions of downstream users.  I
don't think they could have made it any clearer.

At this stage, the discussion about Privacy Principles may be academic,
as we still await further consideration of the request for explicit
permission to use the PSMA data. If I get a favourable response, I will
submit it to the legal-talk list for their views, to make sure concerns
are addressed before we start including any data.





On Tue, Jul 12, 2016, at 06:50 PM, Simon Poole wrote:
> The issues are essentially:
> 
> - we did not receive special permission to distribute the data in OSM
> with attribution via the website. IMHO the permission we received for
> earlier versions boiled down to allowing us to sub-license on ODbL
> terms. This has now been implicitly denied. CC by 4.0 does have slightly
> looser attribution requirements than previous versions, and it has been
> argued that these could be fulfilled by attributing on the OSM website,
> however even if that would be possible it would mean that we couldn't
> sub-licence the data in question and would have to, in some form, pass
> on the specific terms downstream. That is not only highly impractical,
> but likely would cause a conflict with our contributor terms.
> 
> - the additional requirement to adhere to the AUS privacy regulations
> was not addressed in the response, which in itself would be a killer.
> 
> As I pointed out on the legal talk mailing list, all of the above are
> not issues for the usual suspects that offer proprietary data, google,
> here, tomtom and so on, because they maintain tight control over their
> downstream data users, but are a big issues for all projects that
> produce open data and want to distribute their products on a unified
> licence.
> 
> Simon
> 
> 
> 
> Am 11.07.2016 um 11:45 schrieb Andrew Davidson:
> > Is the problem CC 4.0 or is it the riders that have been added? I'm
> > just wondering if this is a general problem with the other data sets
> > on data.gov.au.
> >
> > On 10/07/16 14:06, cleary wrote:
> >> Feedback from the legal-talk list is that the reply from the Department
> >> of Prime Minister and Cabinet is not sufficient and therefore we cannot
> >> use PSMA datasets in OSM.
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-au mailing list
> > Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
> Email had 1 attachment:
> + signature.asc
>   1k (application/pgp-signature)