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

Jonathon Rossi jono at jonorossi.com
Mon Mar 12 12:23:15 UTC 2018

Cheers Simon, that makes sense. I have to defer to those who have contacted
DNRM via private email whether DNRM have made any explicit remarks over the
previous permission. I was initially getting the feeling from some comments
that there was some legal evidence, but I've not seen anything. I guess
since there isn't any legal evidence, that is the reason nothing was
changed on the contributors page, at least now that we don't have
permission to use the CC BY 4.0 data that is explicitly noted.

I'm glad we've got a clear picture of what is allowed and what isn't at
this point in time.

@AndrewH that looks great, once the page has got a heap of green it'll be
useful. I noticed you are missing the BCC datasets, although I've not used

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 9:57 PM Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> wrote:

> 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> 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
>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20180312/89cf8c09/attachment.html>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list