<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p>The text in the waiver referencing the ODbL is there so that it
      is clear that we are not proposing completely waiving the
      restrictions on DRM use (though for produced works it does
      essentially amount to that, but not for the data itself).</p>
    <p>Why doesn't anybody else (outside of OSM) have an issue with the
      terms that we are asking to be waived? Because they simply ignore
      them. <br>
    </p>
    <p>I have yet to see any data project proprietary, closed or open
      that actually conveys this correctly to their users (CC BY 4.0
      IMHO actually rules out using so licensed data in closed
      projects). Given that the department in question and the other
      distributors of data on CC BY terms must be aware that the
      relevant terms are as a rule ignored, you would think that giving
      a positive answer to an organisation that is so polite to ask
      before using the data would just be a formality, but it seems not.</p>
    <p>Simon<br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 16.09.2019 um 04:42 schrieb Jonathon
      Rossi:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAGb9TQLjg6SWvdiYutVeUyiFE7Lc55=_PQ11pargMEqvGD0xaQ@mail.gmail.com">
      <meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <div dir="ltr">
        <div>I guess lawyers don't want to authorise and public servants
          don't want to sign anything that isn't written there, the
          reference material is all useful and explains everything but
          that isn't on the signing page.</div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Maybe instead of this:<br>
          > [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0
          license as to OpenStreetMap and its<br>
          > users with the understanding that the Open Database
          License 1.0 requires open access<br>
          > or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap<br>
        </div>
        <div><br>
        </div>
        <div>Something like this:</div>
        <div>[Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the CC BY 4.0 license
          which prohibits downstream restrictions preventing
          OpenStreetMap data under Open Database License 1.0 to be
          distributed as a combined distribution containing CC BY 4.0
          licensed data. CC BY 4.0 licensed data remains as such. </div>
        <div dir="ltr"><br>
        </div>
        <div>Could be improved more, but a start. Thoughts?</div>
        <div dir="ltr"><br>
          On Mon, Sep 16, 2019 at 12:03 PM Andrew Harvey <<a
            href="mailto:andrew.harvey4@gmail.com"
            moz-do-not-send="true">andrew.harvey4@gmail.com</a>>
          wrote:<br>
        </div>
        <div class="gmail_quote">
          <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
            0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
            rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
            <div dir="ltr">
              <div dir="ltr">On Mon, 16 Sep 2019 at 11:48, Jonathon
                Rossi <<a href="mailto:jono@jonorossi.com"
                  target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">jono@jonorossi.com</a>>
                wrote:<br>
              </div>
              <div class="gmail_quote">
                <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
                  0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                  rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                  <div dir="ltr">
                    <div>I agree that neither side is likely change
                      their position.</div>
                    <div><br>
                    </div>
                    <div>Could we propose (to OSMF) new wording for an
                      updated waiver that makes it clearer, the
                      attribution half doesn't seem like a problem, its
                      the second half which mentions ODbL even though
                      the cover letter block explains it they aren't
                      signing that page. When we were communicating with
                      DNRM early last year they do appear to think that
                      they need to relicense under the ODbL, and I can
                      now sort of see how the waiver could be read that
                      way.</div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>I think OSMF's blog post, the cover letter and the
                  waiver form are very clear. What changes would you
                  propose?<br>
                </div>
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>I got the impression as well, especially with the
                  reply "The department will not provide the data under
                  an ODbl licence." I did try to explain that they don't
                  need to relicense the data under ODbL and that we are
                  just asking for one exception to CC BY in order to be
                  compatible with ODbL.</div>
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
                  0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                  rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                  <div dir="ltr">
                    <div><br>
                    </div>
                    <div>Waiver:</div>
                    <div>> [Entity] waives Section 2(a)(5)(B) of the
                      CC BY 4.0 license as to OpenStreetMap and its<br>
                      > users with the understanding that the Open
                      Database License 1.0 requires open access<br>
                      > or parallel distribution of OpenStreetMap<br>
                    </div>
                    <div><br>
                    </div>
                    <div>CCBY4 Clause:</div>
                    <div>> <u>No downstream restrictions</u>. You
                      may not offer or impose any additional or
                      different</div>
                    <div>> terms or conditions on, or apply any
                      Effective Technological Measures to, the</div>
                    <div>> Licensed Material if doing so restricts
                      exercise of the Licensed Rights by any recipient</div>
                    <div>> of the Licensed Material.</div>
                  </div>
                </blockquote>
                <div><br>
                </div>
                <div>That's it, as I understand it ODbL says you can
                  provide data with these technical restrictions so long
                  as a parallel version is made available without the
                  technical restrictions. CC BY says you can't have any
                  technical restrictions, even if you make a parallel
                  version without the technical restrictions.</div>
                <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px
                  0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
                  rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
                </blockquote>
              </div>
            </div>
          </blockquote>
        </div>
        <br clear="all">
        <div><br>
        </div>
        -- <br>
        <div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">Jono</div>
      </div>
      <br>
      <fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
      <pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Talk-au@openstreetmap.org">Talk-au@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au</a>
</pre>
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>