[Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 121, Issue 12

Sun Mar 4 02:04:30 UTC 2018

Thanks for the advice, this might be something well worth pursuing, I can
get building footprints reasonably easily but those extra attributes from a
government are well worth their weight. There's a few governments here that
are interested (sadly the City of Winnipeg won't release their building
footprint file BUT they have released address and tax info ). The smaller
centers tend to be good friends but typically don't have open data portals.
If another government body (stats, city of ottawa ect) could show how
adopting PDDL and CC0, works, and the OSM community (myself or others) can
show the virtues and value of the data we could speed up the process. I
know it's a bit of a bureaucratic nightmare compared to 2010 era (where
there's still stuff on the map from the Manitoba Land Initiative uploads.)
but it could pay out big!

And sorry about the butchering of your name Stewart!

On Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 1:51 PM, <talk-ca-request at openstreetmap.org> wrote:

> Send Talk-ca mailing list submissions to
>         talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         talk-ca-request at openstreetmap.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         talk-ca-owner at openstreetmap.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Talk-ca digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Brandon licensing (Steve Singer)
>    2. Re: Brandon licensing (john whelan)
>    3. Re: Brandon licensing (Stewart C. Russell)
>    4. Re: Talk-ca Digest, Vol 121, Issue 6 (Stewart C. Russell)
>    5. Re: Brandon licensing (john whelan)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 10:57:47 -0500 (EST)
> From: Steve Singer <steve at ssinger.info>
> To: john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com>
> Cc: keith hartley <keith.a.hartley at gmail.com>, Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
>         <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Brandon licensing
> Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.11.1803031048010.29926 at opti.atlantida>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-15"; Format="flowed"
>
> On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, john whelan wrote:
>
> > > This brings me to the conclusion after all these discussions something
> similar to what SteveA-2009 mentioned.
> > Instead of having OSM conform to these licenses, would be be able to get
> the governing bodies to conform to OSM?
> > In many cases, I'm working with my colleges in the GIS community to
> borrow data,  if we could give them a
> > "guideline to a OSM request" document or something we might be able to
> leverage a ton of data we wouldn't already
> > have. I think this is one of the main motivators behind building 2020.
> That a lot of this data is accessable-ish,
> > opening it would only help add better data to OSM. (keeping in mind
> quality, applicability ect)
> >
> > It's better if you get them to use the Treasury Board Open Data
> licence.  TB has a kit for municipalities and I
> > understand the licence is included.  The advantage is other
> organisations can use the open data.  If you use
> > something OSM specific then someone lese might run into the same problem.
>
> Whenever I've spoken[1] to government representative about choosing an OSM
> compatible license I tell them to choose between PDDL and CC0. Use one
> of these two licenses as written, don't make any changes to them. These are
> the two licenses listed as fully compatible with both the CT and ODBL
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility
>
> I regard that as the guideline.  Any other licenses including custom
> licenses make things more difficult.
>
> [1] - Everytime I've provided input into a licensing consultation in
> Canada the end result is that data is released under some other license.
> Not
> once has someone explained to me why either of those licenses aren't
> acceptable.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 11:59:35 -0500
> From: john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com>
> To: Steve Singer <steve at ssinger.info>
> Cc: keith hartley <keith.a.hartley at gmail.com>, Talk-CA OpenStreetMap
>         <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Brandon licensing
> Message-ID:
>         <CAJ-Ex1F2aa3D76P2HtZeimBZ-n0WSiM0f=mV1BoJ+a-4ddQL9Q@
> mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> > Whenever I've spoken[1] to government representative about choosing an
> OSM compatible license I tell them to choose between PDDL and CC0. Use one
> of these two licenses as written, don't make any changes to them. These are
> the two licenses listed as fully compatible with both the CT and ODBL
> https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility
>
> I regard that as the guideline.  Any other licenses including custom
> licenses make things more difficult.
>
> [1] - Everytime I've provided input into a licensing consultation in Canada
> the end result is that data is released under some other license. Not once
> has someone explained to me why either of those licenses aren't acceptable.
>
> I assume you're not Canadian.  Open Data is handled by Treasury Board which
> is part of the Federal government.  All data released through their Open
> Data portal is under their licence which has been approved by the LWG.
> They spent some three or four years consulting with many players including
> the provincial and municipal governments and the licence they came up with
> is one they feel comfortable with.  It's not perfect but it is a good
> balance.
>
> Asking municipal and provincial governments to adopt a different licence
> means they need to do due diligence which means bringing in the lawyers to
> explain the implications.  It's cheaper and a lot faster to get the TB
> licence approved than to start looking at other licenses.  Not all MPs or
> councillors are in favour of Open Data, by making it sound as if its a
> minor thing to pass through on a vote it slides through.  Any questions fob
> them off with TB.
>
> I understand there are parts of the world that don't have a lot of faith in
> government and civil servants but in Canada it usually works quite well.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 3 March 2018 at 10:57, Steve Singer <steve at ssinger.info> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 3 Mar 2018, john whelan wrote:
> >
> > > This brings me to the conclusion after all these discussions something
> >> similar to what SteveA-2009 mentioned.
> >> Instead of having OSM conform to these licenses, would be be able to get
> >> the governing bodies to conform to OSM?
> >> In many cases, I'm working with my colleges in the GIS community to
> >> borrow data,  if we could give them a
> >> "guideline to a OSM request" document or something we might be able to
> >> leverage a ton of data we wouldn't already
> >> have. I think this is one of the main motivators behind building 2020.
> >> That a lot of this data is accessable-ish,
> >> opening it would only help add better data to OSM. (keeping in mind
> >> quality, applicability ect)
> >>
> >> It's better if you get them to use the Treasury Board Open Data licence.
> >> TB has a kit for municipalities and I
> >> understand the licence is included.  The advantage is other
> organisations
> >> can use the open data.  If you use
> >> something OSM specific then someone lese might run into the same
> problem.
> >>
> >
> > Whenever I've spoken[1] to government representative about choosing an
> OSM
> > compatible license I tell them to choose between PDDL and CC0. Use one of
> > these two licenses as written, don't make any changes to them. These are
> > the two licenses listed as fully compatible with both the CT and ODBL
> > https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/ODbL_Compatibility
> >
> > I regard that as the guideline.  Any other licenses including custom
> > licenses make things more difficult.
> >
> > [1] - Everytime I've provided input into a licensing consultation in
> > Canada the end result is that data is released under some other license.
> > Not once has someone explained to me why either of those licenses aren't
> > acceptable.
> >
> >
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/
> attachments/20180303/6531d2fd/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 14:15:07 -0500
> From: "Stewart C. Russell" <scruss at gmail.com>
> To: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Brandon licensing
> Message-ID: <d53a51fe-cb5e-fe8e-8dc1-94eaa4b74a89 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> On 2018-03-03 11:59 AM, john whelan wrote:
> >
> > I assume you're not Canadian.
>
> Umm, Steve is one of the longest-standing Canadian OSM contributors. I
> think he's the admin of talk-ca too …
>
> > All data released through
> > their Open Data portal is under their licence which has been approved by
> > the LWG.
>
> It was grudgingly approved by the LWG. It's hardly a model licence. It's
> kind of a bad read on the UK licence, missing out key details that at
> least make the v2+ British licence bearable.
>
> > They spent some three or four years consulting with many
> > players including the provincial and municipal governments and the
> > licence they came up with is one they feel comfortable with.  It's not
> > perfect but it is a good balance.
>
> … if you're a government. Notice you didn't list any data users in the
> consulted parties. I remember responding to data consultations as a
> user, and a conservative estimate of 0% of user concerns were included
> in the final outcome.
>
> > Asking municipal and provincial governments to adopt a different licence
> > means they need to do due diligence which means bringing in the lawyers
> > to explain the implications.
>
> It didn't seem to stop every single municipal and provincial government
> wanting to tweak the wording a bit, which makes it a different licence
> every time.
>
> cheers,
>  Stewart
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 14:40:32 -0500
> From: "Stewart C. Russell" <scruss at gmail.com>
> To: talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Talk-ca Digest, Vol 121, Issue 6
> Message-ID: <e4a32f13-c3f4-ffd1-1a4b-772523837a5d at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> 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
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Sat, 3 Mar 2018 14:51:06 -0500
> From: john whelan <jwhelan0112 at gmail.com>
> To: "Stewart C. Russell" <scruss at gmail.com>
> Cc: Talk-CA OpenStreetMap <talk-ca at openstreetmap.org>
> Subject: Re: [Talk-ca] Brandon licensing
> Message-ID:
>         <CAJ-Ex1FCBzU49_WTm9gTcz+2mY4pA8eTMbB1R-Sn0HcHtg5BOA@
> mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> >
> It didn't seem to stop every single municipal and provincial government
> wanting to tweak the wording a bit, which makes it a different licence
> every time.
>
> The TB licence is fairly new.  As far as I am aware only Ottawa has adopted
> it so far.
>
> Cheerio John
>
> On 3 Mar 2018 2:16 pm, "Stewart C. Russell" <scruss at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2018-03-03 11:59 AM, john whelan wrote:
> > >
> > > I assume you're not Canadian.
> >
> > Umm, Steve is one of the longest-standing Canadian OSM contributors. I
> > think he's the admin of talk-ca too …
> >
> > > All data released through
> > > their Open Data portal is under their licence which has been approved
> by
> > > the LWG.
> >
> > It was grudgingly approved by the LWG. It's hardly a model licence. It's
> > kind of a bad read on the UK licence, missing out key details that at
> > least make the v2+ British licence bearable.
> >
> > > They spent some three or four years consulting with many
> > > players including the provincial and municipal governments and the
> > > licence they came up with is one they feel comfortable with.  It's not
> > > perfect but it is a good balance.
> >
> > … if you're a government. Notice you didn't list any data users in the
> > consulted parties. I remember responding to data consultations as a
> > user, and a conservative estimate of 0% of user concerns were included
> > in the final outcome.
> >
> > > Asking municipal and provincial governments to adopt a different
> licence
> > > means they need to do due diligence which means bringing in the lawyers
> > > to explain the implications.
> >
> > It didn't seem to stop every single municipal and provincial government
> > wanting to tweak the wording a bit, which makes it a different licence
> > every time.
> >
> > cheers,
> >  Stewart
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Talk-ca mailing list
> > Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/
> attachments/20180303/3dd134ba/attachment.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Subject: Digest Footer
>
> _______________________________________________
> Talk-ca mailing list
> Talk-ca at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-ca
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> End of Talk-ca Digest, Vol 121, Issue 11
> ****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/attachments/20180303/e28ddeda/attachment-0001.html>