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

Mon Mar 12 04:37:20 UTC 2018

Is that (second sentence) word for word the same response you got the first
time, where they thought they'd have to relicense under the ODbL?

P.S. sorry about not replying all with my last email.

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:31 PM, Joel H. <95.5.radio at gmail.com> wrote:

> OK everyone, Here is the feedback I got after asking for permission to use
> CC-BY 4.0 datasets:
>
> Thank you for your enquiry regarding use of the localities boundaries
> dataset in OpenStreetMap.
> The Department has given consideration to your request and advise that,
> consistent with Queensland Government policy, our data is provided under a
> CC:BY 4.0 licence.  The Department will not provide the data under an Open
> Database licence.  It is our belief that a CC:BY licence is sufficient for
> use of our data
>
>
> On 12/03/18 14:27, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>
> Could you please share their response or paraphrase it so we can all
> understand their reasons.
>
> Thanks, Jono
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:24 PM Joel H. <95.5.radio at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I tried again, and got rejected again. I had contact with someone behind
>> a local GIS company who said he would try to help. But I haven't heard
>> back. So I've put it to rest for now...
>>
>> I guess we should advocate for more compatibility with CC-BY 4.0 in our
>> licence.
>>
>> On 12/03/18 13:35, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
>>
>> Joel,
>>
>> Did you get a response from DNRM? Are you still in talks with them?
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 1, 2018 at 10:07 PM Jonathon Rossi <jono at jonorossi.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/df/NSW_GNB_170427_OpenStreetMap.pdf>
>>> 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
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.brisbane.qld.gov.au_explicit_permission> it
>>> 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
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/d/df/NSW_GNB_170427_OpenStreetMap.pdf>
>>> - Victoria DELWP have signed the waiver
>>> <https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/w/images/e/ed/Vicmap_CCBYPermission_OSM_Final_Jan2018_Ltr.pdf>
>>> - 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
>>>>
>>>
>>
>

-- 
Jono
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20180312/c1b06419/attachment-0001.html>