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

[Cameron Shorter]

Hi all,

I've been lurking on this list for a while, work in the Australian 
spatial industry (mainly deploying open source GIS software), and am 
interested in seeing government data GNAF incorporated into OSM. What 
gets worked out with OSM will likely be used for other Australian 
datasets as well.

I expect that Government agencies won't be able to break their 
guidelines about privacy (such as sharing every address and using for 
spam), however, I expect there is more value in the GNAF datasets which 
is of value, and can be released under an OSM compatible license.

Eg: I assume GNAF has every road in Australia which would be of value to 
OSM? If so, we should put a proposal to PSMA: "Can we please have X,Y,Z 
under s OSM compatible license".

Warm regards, Cameron Shorter

On 16/07/2016 12:15 PM, cleary wrote:
> 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)
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-au mailing list
> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au

-- 
--
Cameron Shorter,
Software and Data Solutions Manager
Jirotech
Suite 112, Jones Bay Wharf,
26 - 32 Pirrama Rd, Pyrmont NSW 2009

P +61 2 8099 9000,  M +61 419 142 254, W www.jirotech.com