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

[Andrew Davidson]

On 13/03/18 17:16, Jonathon Rossi wrote:
> I hope you don't mind me replying back on list and that it was just an 
> accident not CCing the list.

No, that was a deliberate attempt to take this discussion off-list as 
I'm not sure that there is much point in raking over old mistakes unless 
we are trying to learn from our mistakes.

> 
> Your interpretation makes sense to me the way you explained it, I hadn't 
> noticed that detail. I assume you expect that if the data.gov.au 
> <http://data.gov.au> team really meant to include other non-Australian 
> Government agencies it would explicitly be "Australian Government and 
> state and territory governments"

Yes. In light of comments like this:

https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-au@openstreetmap.org/msg07906.html

we should be assuming that the attribution statement is precisely what 
the AGIMO meant it to be.

> or similar, at a minimum "government" being pluralised?

No. They wouldn't have referred to Australian governments to mean both 
tiers as the style guide requires the separate mention of Australian 
Government (guess it's because they don't want to be seen as being on 
the same level as the states).

> Is your view that the only listed dataset that might be permissible is 
> the ABS data, the one that is noted as a "maybe"?

There is this message:

https://www.mail-archive.com/talk-au@openstreetmap.org/msg07976.html

but I can't find any subsequent response to say if the ABS data was ever 
listed on data.gov.au. If anybody was mapping back in 2011 and knows it 
would be good to find out.

> 
> I'm reading between the lines and maybe airing dirty laundry, but is it 
> the position of the OSMF that the permission is valid and your view that 
> it isn't.

It's not a question of validity rather of scope. Now I can believe that 
the AGIMO might be authorised to speak on Commonwealth owned datasets, 
but there is no way that they were in a position to be making decisions 
about state or territory datasets. Having been involved in this 
relationship from the perspective of a state government department I 
know that when we put datasets up on data.gov.au we are in no way giving 
the Feds a say on how other people use our datasets. It's our IP and if 
you want to talk about it you should be talking to us.

> which is why you manually monitor usage because you didn't 
> feel like this discussion again and have better things to do?
> 

Can, worms, sticks and bears. I was hoping that if we stopped people 
adding more stuff we could just quietly let things be. As others have 
pointed out there is a lot of very deeply embedded data from these state 
datasets that would be very difficult to remove.