[talk-au] I have written a response to DNRM, please give feedback
jono at jonorossi.com
Fri Mar 16 14:02:59 UTC 2018
> I spent a fair amount of time two years back reading all the publicly
available discussion leading up to 4.0, and a frequent statement in the
context was that "everybody ignores it anyway" (it == the DRM prohibition).
> We would still have the attribution problem, but that is, as this
discussion shows, in general not an issue.
It's unfortunate that the CC group understand the problem with this clause
and continue to get emails monthly while this clause hamstrings people
including "All Japanese terrestrial broadcasting is protected by a TPM"
and that then most continue to just ignore the DRM prohibition clause
> In summary, I 100% agree with Simon that while there may be issues with
CC 4.0, earlier dataset incorporation is a "done deal" and history. We can
clearly show with a paper trail that we have acted properly and in good
faith. The only thing that I would suggest: Various Australian government
organisations have been very helpful to us, and much earlier than most.
Hi Michael, glad to hear you'll be spending more time in Australia, gotta
love it here. A done deal and history appears to be the position we are at.
Interesting to see that quoted email from data.gov.au where they said "
Data.gov.au <http://data.gov.au/> provides datasets from all three tiers of
government which involved a number of different legal entities" when
responding that the attribution is appropriate.
Although it feels like the problem is that the OSMF now acknowledges the
DRM prohibition clause of CC BY, but isn't requiring us to get waivers to
continuing to use these previously explicit permission'ed datasets.
Simon, what is the reasoning behind not wanting to get waivers to continue
using a dataset, could it be a policy decision just for Australia that to
continue using a dataset from a specific date you must have a waiver, just
thinking with regards to AndrewH's work getting waivers signed for
everything. I'm naive so I'm guessing this would tick many people off and
in many cases is unnecessary however depends on the wording that was
agreed. It would however solve the problem of what you can use going
forward, and put this data.gov.au one to bed and any others lurking in
there with strange wording in the permission.
> As a courtesy, I feel we should add a line to our high-level page
Agreed, Australia isn't even mentioned. After looking for at the source of
that page I now understand why no one edits it, crazy yaml and it's
Maybe with all these new standard form waivers it is time to add new ones
to a differently implemented copyright page, with the remaining attribution
remaining on the wiki?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Talk-au