[talk-au] QTOPO online maps

Greg Lauer gregory.lauer at gmail.com
Mon Sep 16 01:07:37 UTC 2019

Just so I am clear on this issue. We are not asking DERM to change the
current CC4 licence. We are asking DERM to give us formal permission to use
the data. This can be as simple as an email from a responsible party at
DERM giving us permission. Am I interpreting this correctly?


On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 11:01 AM Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>

> I don't think OSMF will change this requirement, as the reasons for the
> waiver are detailed in the blog post Mateusz linked to,
> https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ are pretty
> compelling.
> There had been some hope that CC BY 4.0 sources would be directly
>> compatible with the ODbL. But while neither CC nor the OSMF has undertaken
>> a complete compatibility analysis, we have identified at least one  point
>> of incompatibility and one possible challenge regarding attribution that
>> lead us to our decision to continue to ask for explicit permission to use
>> BY 4.0-licensed material in the OSM project. This is the best path forward.
>  If you would like a second voice for your enquiry with Gold Coast, feel
> free to loop me in.
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 07:34, Graeme Fitzpatrick <graemefitz1 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 21:02, Andrew Harvey <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 15 Sep 2019 at 18:05, Mateusz Konieczny <matkoniecz at tutanota.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> See https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/
>>>> CC BY 4.0 requires waiver
>>>> The additional text is confirmation that it is
>>>> actually released under this licence
>>>> and that personal confirmation is not required.
>>> Exactly.
>>> I reached out to Greg Payne, Director of Land and Spatial Information,
>>> Topographic Data, Imagery and Mapping, DNRM in December 2018 (in case
>>> anything had changed since my prior correspondence), the reply was:
>>>  The Department’s position has not changed since your previous enquiry.
>>>> Consistent with Queensland Government policy, our data is provided
>>>> under a CC:BY 4.0 Licence.  The department will not provide the data under
>>>> an ODbl licence.  It is our belief that a CC:BY licence is sufficient for
>>>> use of our data and we do not accept that OpenStreetMap cannot use our data
>>>> under the CC:BY licence.
>>> So unfortunately we're in a stalemate, OSMF says we need a waiver, DNRME
>>> says they don't believe we need one. So we can't currently use DNRME's CC
>>> BY 4.0 open data within OpenStreetMap unless either OSMF or DNRME change
>>> their stance.
>>> I'm not taking a stab at DNRME over this, they are free to no agree to
>>> the waiver, it's their call.
>> Thanks both of you.
>> Exactly the same position with my on-going discussions with Gold Coast
>> City Council - they've given us explicit permission to use their data, but
>> can't get their head around our need for a waiver as well?
>> " unless ... OSMF ... change their stance" - any chance / likelihood of
>> that happening?
>> Thanks
>> Graeme
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20190916/8851bb17/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Talk-au mailing list