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

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Mon Mar 12 11:57:05 UTC 2018


Am 12.03.2018 um 11:47 schrieb Jonathon Rossi:
> Sorry Simon, I really didn't intend to make things more complicated. I
> just wanted to ensure someone else doesn't get caught in the future
> after thinking I was doing the right thing, and no one else has done
> this each time this has come up in the past.
Jonathon the effort is clearly appreciated. At the time the issue was
rather hotly debated and (as I wasn't really involved at the time) we
would likely need to ask Michael Collinson for the historic information.

>
> I've made your suggested change to the page in regards to CC BY 4.0
> datasets, I've also moved it to the bottom line of the section since
> that made sense.
>
> If we don't doubt the validity of the permission granted as you
> mentioned we obviously don't know internal government arrangements way
> back, then does that mean we'd allow people to continue using the DNRM
> (and others) CC BY 2.5 datasets?

There are (at least) two aspects here:

- has the DNRM explicitly made a statement on the validity of the
explicit permission from data.gov.au back then?  If no, then I don't see
a reason to change our approach.
- we have tightened our regime wrt CC BY 4.0  relative to CC BY 2.5,
because it is a significantly changed licence and a number of the
concerns we have with 4.0 don't exist in such a form in 2.5 (in
particular the for OSM very relevant section on database rights), and to
be consistent we've asked, going forward, for the equivalent terms in
older CC licenses to be waived too. We've however not asked anybody to
go back to CC BY 2.X sources from which we have received permission in
the past and assume that such permission continues to be valid for the
datasets it was given at the time.

Simon 

> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 8:17 PM Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch
> <mailto:simon at poole.ch>> wrote:
>
>
>
>     Am 12.03.2018 um 11:13 schrieb Simon Poole:
>>
>>
>>     Making clear that we don't the validity of the permission granted
>>     for the CC BY 2.5 datasets, but don't extend it to covering the
>>     current ones and avoid speculating on internal government
>>     arrangements way back.
>>
>     That should have been:
>
>     .. that we don't doubt the validity ..
>     _______________________________________________
>     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/a433df7a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 488 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20180312/a433df7a/attachment.sig>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list