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

Jonathon Rossi jono at jonorossi.com
Mon Mar 12 05:16:03 UTC 2018

It appears so, and they just have a boilerplate response to these types of
questions now.

Since we are stuck between DNRM and OSMF on CC-BY 4.0 (in no ill way) it
would be good to at least clear up the current position so others don't get
caught like me. The CC-BY 2.5 attribution was granted by the data.gov.au
team not DNRM (or a former named department), so how relevant/legal do we
think this is now that we know DNRM's position on the matter who are the
actual copyright owner.

> [...] We have also been given explicit permission to incorporate and
publish such CC-BY licensed geographic coordinate datasets under a free and
open license, including the Open Database License, provided that primary
attribution is made here and that each dataset used is also listed here in
the format Dataset Name, Date Published, License, Agency Name, originally
retrieved from http://data.australia.gov.au:
> [...]
> Property Boundaries Annual Extract Queensland (Lite DCDB), unknown
publication date, CC-BY 2.5 Australia, Queensland Department of Environment
and Resource Management, originally retrieved from http://data.gov.au/152

> Contains data from Australian government public information datasets. The
original datasets are available from the Australian government data website
under Creative Commons - Attribution 2.5 Australia (CC-BY) and Creative
Commons - Attribution 3.0 Australia (CC-BY). We have also been given
explicit permission to incorporate and publish such CC-BY licensed
geographic coordinate datasets under a free and open license, including the
Open Database License, provided that primary attribution is made here and
that each dataset used is also listed here in the format Dataset Name, Date
Published, License, Agency Name, originally retrieved from

Even if we got an older copy of the data (which would still be very
useful), we still need explicit permission to use this CC-BY 2.5 data
according to OSMF:

> Both the 2.0 and 3.0 versions of the CC BY (Creative Commons Attribution)
licence have been popular with government and other sources for a long
time. Due to differences between CC BY and the ODbL with respect to
attribution, the LWG (OSMF Licence/Legal Working Group) has always required
explicit permission from licensors to use such data in OpenStreetMap and
attribute by adding an entry to our attribution pages on our central

IANAL, but now that we know officially that DNRM won't give it to us on
CC-BY 4.0 data they most likely wouldn't give us that permission on the
CC-BY 2.x/3.x data either today, we should make changes to the
contributions page to reflect that DNRM has not given us permission to
incorporate their data. I'm going to revert my recent changes earlier this
year which were flagged, but it also means if we come across imported data
from the DCDB which there is some I've seen attributed to it, then we
should remove it and replace it with something we can derive from another


On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 2:40 PM Joel H. <joelh at cocaine.ninja> wrote:

> Yeah pretty much, I interpret it as "We will not deviate from CC-BY 4.0".
> On 12/03/18 14:37, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> 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/e14463b7/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list