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

Jonathon Rossi jono at jonorossi.com
Mon Mar 12 05:23:25 UTC 2018

There is a bunch of very outdated info which I don't think is relevant to
this on the discussion/talk page on this too:

Is anyone familiar with the Licensing Working Group, should we defer this
to them and request they edit the Contributions page?

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:16 PM Jonathon Rossi <jono at jonorossi.com> wrote:

> 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
> (Archived)
> (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors#Commonwealth_of_Australia
> )
> > 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
> http://data.australia.gov.au
> (
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Attribution/data.gov.au_explicit_permission
> )
> 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 websites.
> (https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/)
> 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
> source.
> Jono
> 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/20180312/8577c55c/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list