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

Jonathon Rossi jono at jonorossi.com
Wed Mar 14 12:06:27 UTC 2018


>
> 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.
>

I know at least I am learning a lot about the whole licensing area and from
these past mistakes here and also now have an appreciation of the effort
and heartache others have gone though to get things to where they are
today. Hopefully this thread results in something useful.

> 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.
>

I had a look at some history of the data.australia.gov.au and data.gov.au
web sites, and as others claimed in those mailing list threads these web
sites appear to have always run as a portal where a government agency can
submit data and pick a license from a drop down, the data was even grouped
into "jurisdictions" on data.gov.au.

The copyright pages also had this:

> If you have any questions, please contact the contributing agency.
(captured 12 Nov 2009,
https://web.archive.org/web/20091112020639/http://www.australia.gov.au/about/copyright#data
)

> If you have any questions about a particular dataset on data.gov.au,
please contact the contributing agency.
> (captured 11 Mar 2011,
https://web.archive.org/web/20110311145839/http://data.gov.au/about/copyright/
)

Strangely the DCDB dataset was still available on data.australia.gov.au prior
to and on 26 Nov 2010, but disappeared by 01 Mar 2011:
https://web.archive.org/web/20101126161529/http://data.australia.gov.au:80/catalogue/property
https://web.archive.org/web/20110301031838/http://data.australia.gov.au/catalogue/property

... I thought maybe it moved to data.gov.au during a transition? However I
couldn't find it at any point in time under any of these (although that
doesn't mean it wasn't there):
- "Queensland" under jurisdictions (
https://web.archive.org/web/20110311235629/http://data.gov.au/jurisdiction/)
- "Property" category, while the other "property" category datasets did
come across from data.australia.gov.au
- QLD DERM agency (
https://web.archive.org/web/20110601192908/http://data.gov.au/data/?agency=Queensland+Department+of+Environment+and+Resource+Management
)

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.
>

AndrewD, in Aug 2011 there were quite a lot of ABS datasets on data.gov.au:
https://web.archive.org/web/20110829100039/http://data.gov.au:80/data/?agency=Australian+Bureau+of+Statistics

To give a bit more context and perhaps point out a way to resolve this
> without every thing blowing up:
>
> At the time the permission from data.gov.au was obtained, OSM was in the
> final stages of the licence change. Normally the LWG wouldn't have
> become directly involved at all in the matter of licensing national
> datasets, just as it is now only involved on request in late stage
> vetting. However at the time there was a die hard group of people that
> wanted to derail the licence change at essentially all costs, and
> unluckily some of the louder voices were Australian. The people involved
> jumped on use of CC BY 2.* datasets from Australian government sources
> in OSM as one of the major arguments against the licence change and
> nobody local seemed to be willing to resolve the issue, as a result the
> LWG engaged directly with data.gov.au.
>

Simon, thanks for the background, I thought there was context I was missing
as I read though all the emails in those long threads yesterday. I can now
understand why various parties have a bad taste in their mouth over this
topic and why some people stepped away from the project.

Now it should be pointed out that, as I've said previously, the major
> concern, and why we wanted permission in the first place is that the
> ODbL doesn't require downstream attribution on derivative databases and
> works, it just requires a pointer back to the source of the database.
> That is the reason why OSM, in one way or the other, has always required
> that data sources that have licensed their data on CC BY 2.X/3.0 terms
> agree that indirect attribution via the website or the contributors page
> is sufficient. I have yet to hear that such agreement has been withheld,
> as clearly anything else would be totally impractical. It should be
> noted that we didn't require downstream attribution even when OSM data
> was licensed CC BY SA 2.0, and we would have needed exactly the same
> permission even without the licence change, it was simply the event
> which made these issues surface.
>
> Now going forward, if there is local consensus that the permission from
> data.gov.au is not enough, there is no reason that the local community
> can't go back to the relatively small number of CC BY 2.X/3.0 sources
> and ask for agreement that the attribution that we have been providing
> all the time on the contributors page is sufficient.  That doesn't
> resolve the issue with CC BY 4.0 datasets* which is, as said, a
> different license. and where we really need the waivers, but would keep
> all past contributions safe.
>

I like the idea of getting a fresh agreement about attribution to continue
using the CC BY 2.5/3.0 licensed data, even if we cannot use the CC BY 4.0
data today. I don't think it would be hard to get the rights holder's okay
that they are happy with our attribution of their data.

Could you please point me to a good resource that explains why CC BY 2.5
and 3.0 don't have the same problem with "technical protection measures"
that we've got in the waivers because I'm obviously missing something. I've
read the license texts and
https://wiki.creativecommons.org/wiki/License_Versions#Application_of_effective_technological_measures_by_users_of_CC-licensed_works_prohibited
.

-- 
Jono
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/attachments/20180314/a84f14f3/attachment.html>


More information about the Talk-au mailing list