<html><head></head><body>If you lie about your ability to PD data, you are liable for the effects.<br>
<br>
Whatever you do or don't sign.<br>
<br>
- Rob.<br>
-- <br>
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">"ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" <g.gremmen@cetest.nl> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre style="white-space: pre-wrap; word-wrap:break-word; font-family: sans-serif">Signing (clicking) the CT explicitly transfers the <br />liability of the suitability to the contributor,<br />where declaring PD does not. <br />The Board wants us to sign a contract with them.<br />It's not about data but about compliance. <br /><br /><br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Gert Gremmen, <br /><br /><br /><br />-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----<br />Van: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:richard@systemeD.net] <br />Verzonden: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:53 PM<br />Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org<br />Onderwerp: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as<br />PD<br /><br />There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August<br />(<a href="https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df">https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df</a>).<br /><br />> Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their<br />> contributions are public
domain.<br />><br />> There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be<br />> maintained in the current OSM database even after a switch to<br />> ODbL.<br />><br />> A very small number of contributors have declined the new<br />> contributor terms and asserted that the their contributions are in<br />> the public domain. This does not mean that the collective data in<br />> the OSM database is public domain. Their 'PD' position contradicts<br />> the explicit decline. Therefore the LWG takes the position that<br />> their contributions cannot be published under ODbL without<br />> acceptance of the contribut[or terms].<br /><br />(I think the two contributors affected by this are Tim Sheerman-Chase<br />and<br />Florian Lohoff, but there may be others.)<br /><br />I'm a little puzzled by this. "Asserting that one's contributions are in<br />the public domain" is saying, in the words of the disclaimer used on<br />Wikipedia and on
the OSM wiki, "I grant anyone the right to use my<br />contributions for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such<br />conditions are required by law".<br /><br />Therefore I don't see any reason why the data cannot be included in OSM.<br />The contributor has given a grant of all rights - not just copyright,<br />but<br />any database right or indeed other right that might exist. There is no<br />difference between (say) TimSC's PD data and the TIGER PD data, but<br />we're<br />not requiring the US Census Bureau to sign the terms.[1]<br /><br />The minute says "Their 'PD' position contradicts the explicit decline",<br />which seems to me to be true legally but not "politically". There are<br />people who do not wish to enter into a formal agreement with OSMF, and<br />though I think they're mistaken, they doubtless have their own reasons.<br /><br />What am I missing? What exactly is meant by "the collective data in the<br />OSM database"?<br /><br />cheers<br />Richard<br
/><br />[1] I am diplomatically ignoring the fact that there is no proof that US<br />Federal data is public domain _outside_ the States ;)<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><hr /><br />legal-talk mailing list<br />legal-talk@openstreetmap.org<br /><a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk</a><br /><br /><hr /><br />legal-talk mailing list<br />legal-talk@openstreetmap.org<br /><a href="http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk">http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk</a><br /><br /></pre></blockquote></div></body></html>