[talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback
jono at jonorossi.com
Mon Mar 12 07:02:59 UTC 2018
Thanks Ian, that makes sense, glad to get a few more people involved in
With the comment in mind I've amended the text to this for now:
> The explicit permission granted by the data.gov.au team (operated by the
Digital Transformation Agency) is no longer viewed as valid as there is no
evidence they had permission to grant us these rights at that point in
time. Permission to use the following datasets in the future must be
obtained directly from the copyright owner (2018-03-12).
On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:59 PM Ian Sergeant <inas66+osm at gmail.com> wrote:
> We need the right form of words. I completely agree we should not rely on
> data.gov.au permission for any new datasets.
> However, I'm not sure we want words that would give someone justification
> to go down the redaction path for existing data sets. We were given
> permission by one arm of the government, about data owned by another arm,
> and we relied on that in good faith. We stopped when we had information
> suggesting anything to the contrary.
> On 12 March 2018 at 17:41, Jonathon Rossi <jono at jonorossi.com> wrote:
>> Thanks Andrew, and thanks again for flagging my use a few months back.
>> Can we once and for all publicly note the "data.gov.au permission can of
>> worms", even if that is simply adding to the existing Contributions page
>> text noting exactly what everyone "in the know" knows about the problem,
>> OSM contributors shouldn't have to search the mailing list for this info.
>> I've made the following addition to the wiki page:
>> > The explicit permission granted by the data.gov.au team (operated by
>> the Digital Transformation Agency) is no longer viewed as valid as there is
>> no evidence they had permission to grant us these rights. Permission to use
>> the following datasets at any time must be obtained directly from the
>> copyright owner (2018-03-12).
>> If this isn't appropriate, then I'm all ears.
>> Thanks again guys even though this isn't the outcome we wanted.
>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 3:30 PM Andrew Davidson <theswavu at gmail.com>
>>> Yeap, this has already been covered before:
>>> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jonathon Rossi <jono at jonorossi.com>
>>>> 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.
>> Talk-au mailing list
>> Talk-au at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au