[talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback

Jonathon Rossi jono at jonorossi.com
Thu Feb 1 12:07:52 UTC 2018

Great to hear Joel, I was actually wondering last night if you'd already
sent this off.

I'm not an expert in this area so happy for others to correct me, however
my reading of your description of the second section that DNRM needs to
waive doesn't explain to someone not familiar with what we are requesting,
I think DNRM staff are likely to think this is still too hard and push back
yet again. I like Andrew Harvey's description here
of both sections including the extended part of section 2, maybe he will
give permission to use his description.

Regarding who has signed the waiver:
- According to the contributors page for BCC
appears they haven't signed the waiver because it didn't exist until early
2017 but it appears they gave explicit permission to incorporate and
publish their CC-BY data under an ODbL, more than the waiver requires
- The explicit permission from NSW Land and Property Information sounds the
same as the BCC one giving more permission than OSMF now needs
- The NSW Geographical Name Register have signed the waiver
- Victoria DELWP have signed the waiver
- SA and MRWA seem to have explicitly agreed with the same sort of thing
BCC and NSW LPI did

I don't know if there was some sort of informal/old waiver or explicit
permission template because the older ones are pretty similar, they
obviously aren't explicit about Section 2(a)(5)(B) though. If that is the
case I'd amend your list of who has signed the waiver, maybe even consider
linking to the NSW GNR and Victoria DELWP signed waivers proving the claim.

Hope that helps, Jono

On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 9:09 PM Joel H. <95.5.radio at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All! I have made a response to DNRM, regarding the licensing for
> locality boarders. Please give a critique before I send!
> *Hello [NAME],*
> *Thank you for your time and consideration regarding the approval for
> OpenStreetMap.*
> *As a response to your concern over the licence change, it isn’t necessary
> for DNRM data to be re-licenced as a result of usage in OpenStreetMap. It’s
> simply about signing a waiver to clarify minor differences in licences.
> Approving usage in OSM shouldn’t tamper with the goals of DNRM since OSM
> uses a very similar licence with many of the same philosophical views.*
> *The first part that needs approval is whether or not you think our method
> of Attribution, is sufficient with the “reasonable manner” requirement of
> the CC-BY 4.0. We credit sources through the following page:
> http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors
> <http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors>, It’s also possible to
> add sources to the objects which are DNRM’s data.*
> *The second is to waive Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC*
> *BY 4.0 license as to OpenStreetMap and its users with the understanding
> that*
> *the Open Database License 1.0 requires open access or parallel
> distribution of*
> *OpenStreetMap data.*
> *Many organisations such as Brisbane City Council and New South Wales Land
> and Property Information, have already given permission in the same way
> that DNRM could.*
> *I hope you take the time to reconsider. I’ve attached the PDF that is
> needed for your review, keep in touch.*
> *Joel Hansen*
> *Local OpenStreetMap Editor*
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180201/7c0f22f3/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list