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

Joel H. joelh at cocaine.ninja
Mon Mar 12 09:54:31 UTC 2018


Have we necessarily exhausted all our options? I only ever asked DNRM, I
know of other dataset from different agencies which is also CC-BY 4.0.

Also is it really needed to redact all that DCDB stuff? That was
imported back when we had permission right?


On 12/03/18 17:07, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> I'm glad you mentioned that Ian, because I started looking at what
> we'd have to "redact" and it is very mixed up with data from DCDB and
> survey, so we'd loose heaps.
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=Natural+Resources+and+Mines#values
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=Environment+and+Resource+Management#values
> https://taginfo.openstreetmap.org/search?q=dcdb#values
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:02 PM Jonathon Rossi <jono at jonorossi.com
> <mailto:jono at jonorossi.com>> wrote:
>
>     Thanks Ian, that makes sense, glad to get a few more people
>     involved in this discussion.
>
>     With the comment in mind I've amended the text to this for now:
>     > The explicit permission granted by the data.gov.au
>     <http://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
>     <mailto:inas66%2Bosm at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>         We need the right form of words.  I completely agree we should
>         not rely on data.gov.au <http://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.
>
>         Ian.
>         On 12 March 2018 at 17:41, Jonathon Rossi <jono at jonorossi.com
>         <mailto: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
>             <http://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
>             <http://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 <mailto:theswavu at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>                 Yeap, this has already been covered before:
>
>                 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2017-March/011291.html
>
>                 On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Jonathon Rossi
>                 <jono at jonorossi.com <mailto:jono at jonorossi.com>> wrote:
>
>                      The CC-BY 2.5 attribution was granted by the
>                     data.gov.au <http://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 <mailto: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/20180312/163ae25a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list