[Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 121, Issue 6

[Stewart C. Russell]

On 2018-03-02 11:53 PM, keith hartley wrote:
> 
> Scruff - thanks for the insight on the license, would explicit 
> permission from them for this project work? or does the license null
> it? It's supposed to be based off the national open data license but
> is highly modified.

oh autocorrect and my name …

I think - and only the LWG could tell you for sure - that explicit
permission to use the data under the terms of the ODbL
<https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/> were provided, then you'd
likely be okay. The approval need to be a bit more than the "Can OSM use
your data?" / "Yes ;-)" [sic] that we got from Toronto in 2010 or so.

If Brandon were able to relicense under CC-BY 4.0, there are templates
here -
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Waiver_and_Permission_Templates
-  for getting the data into OSM. An executed copy of one of these filed
in the OSM wiki would probably clear the licence hurdle - but wouldn't
shortcut the import writeup on the wiki and the (sometime brutal)
commentary on the imports@ list.

On 2018-03-03 09:08 AM, Jonathan Brown wrote:
>
> Perhaps the Open Government Partnership folks should consider posting
> a wiki on the common open data license that they are promoting.

It's the Federal treasury board one. At the Mappy Hour Toronto meeting
that you were at (I think) we discussed the option of municipalities
offering their data up to the Federal government to be published under
the Federal licence. Kevin pointed out at the time that that's how
municipal roads end up in the Federal data set. Now, whether we could
get municipalities to do this for other data sets that we'd be
interested in *and* how quickly the Feds might accept and publish it,
are two entirely disjoint matters.

cheers,
 Stewart