[Imports] Toronto, Vancouver, & Edmonton data terms of use

Katie Filbert filbertk at gmail.com
Wed Mar 3 02:20:18 GMT 2010

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Richard Weait <richard at weait.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Katie Filbert <filbertk at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I am inquiring about data provided by the cities of Toronto, Vancouver,
> and
> > Edmonton -- all essentially have the same terms of use, almost
> word-for-word
> > -- and want to identify what the specific problems are with the terms of
> > use.
> >
> >
> http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/open_data/open-data-terms-of-use.aspx
> > http://www.toronto.ca/open/terms.htm
> > http://data.vancouver.ca/termsOfUse.htm
> >
> > The problems that I see include:
> [all of it]
> Agreed.  Their license is no good for us.  I've been encouraging
> Toronto to take a look at PDDL.

Agree that PDDL would be good, though it might be asking too much at this

If they took out all the points that I listed, is what's left acceptable?
I think that if their terms say that they make no warranty of the data and
cannot be held liable for any problems with the data, that's okay.

Also okay if they specify that they do not give no endorsement (of reuses)
and their trademarks are protected?

It's also okay for them to say they may change or discontinue providing the
data at any time, and the part about requesting (but not requiring)
attribution is fine?

Alternatively, if they gave OpenStreetMap a waiver for the objectionable
terms, would that be okay?


Katie Filbert
filbertk at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20100302/5579b8df/attachment.html>

More information about the Imports mailing list