[Imports] Calgary addresses
james2432 at gmail.com
Tue Jul 19 01:11:47 UTC 2016
Although that's all good and well we do have an issue with one of the
points and it's the same one we have an issue with the city of Ottawa and
prevents us from using it. They said they were supposed to change the
license to open gov license over 2 years now, but haven't
To the fullest extent permitted by law, you shall indemnify and save
harmless The City, from any claim, loss, damage, injury or liability of any
kind, nature and description (including, without limitation, incidental and
consequential damages, court costs, attorney’s fees and costs of
investigation), that arise directly or indirectly, in whole or in part,
from your use of the Data, including without limitation your use of the
Data in a Derivative Work. In addition to your obligation to indemnify The
City, you specifically acknowledge and agree that you have an immediate and
independent obligation to defend The City from any claim which actually or
potentially falls within this indemnification provision, even if the
allegations are or may be groundless, false or fraudulent, which obligation
arises at the time such claim is tendered to you by The City and continues
at all times thereafter. THE CITY IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY LIABILITY FOR
ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR OTHER DAMAGES RESULTING
FROM THE USE, MISUSE OR MISINTERPRETATION OF ANY CONTENT, PRODUCTS OR
SERVICES PROVIDED BY THIS SITE.
We cannot be held responsible if someone sues the city.
On Jul 18, 2016 8:08 PM, "Greg Troxel" <gdt at ir.bbn.com> wrote:
> Kevin Kenny <kevin.b.kenny+osm at gmail.com> writes:
> > On Mon, Jul 18, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>
> >> Before we get into the technicalities, I believe there might be a slight
> >> problem on the legal side.
> >> OSM data is distributed under the ODbL 1.0 license which does not
> >> discriminate against any fields of endeavour, including such that are
> >> against the law.
> >> Your license however says that:
> >> "You may use the Data to create Derivative Works using the Data and
> >> distribute said Derivative Works for any lawful purposes."
> > This argument is, to put it bluntly, silly. In Common Law countries,
> > this is a difference without a distinction. An contract to break the
> > law is void as a matter of public policy. There is no enforceable
> > difference between a license 'for any lawful purpose' and a license
> > 'for any purpose whatsoever,' because the licensor cannot grant
> > permission to break the law.
> I think it's specious, too, but from a slightly different viewpoint. If
> someone were to use OSM unlawfully, that's between them and their
> government. The notion that they are also liable for some sort of
> database copyright infringement seems odd.
> But, if I follow, Kevin may be saying that a license to use data
> unlawfully is void, and thus a license with the restriction and a
> license without the restriction actually grant exactly the same
> Another question is how other areas of the Free Software community have
> interpreted these sorts of clauses. I think it's pretty clear that "you
> can use this software but you can't build missiles" is the sort of field
> of endeavor discrimination that is intended to be prevented, rather than
> a relatively harmless "we didn't mean to grant permission for anything
> unlawful" caveat.
> Imports mailing list
> Imports at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Imports