[Imports] Calgary addresses

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Tue Jul 19 06:46:36 UTC 2016


On 07/19/2016 01:56 AM, Kevin Kenny wrote:
> 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. 

Thank you for calling my argument silly. I don't think it is, though.

1. Why are they explicitly limiting the data use to lawful purposes if
this is so clear anyway?

2. The wording says that we must distribute the data only for "lawful
purposes". I am - not a native speaker - unsure what this means:

(a) We must not ourselves follow an illegal purpose when distributing
it? This is something that we could perhaps agree to.

(b) We must ensure that when we distribute the data, users are bound to
only use it for lawful purposes by some kind of license text? This is
something we cannot do.

3. "lawful" in what time and country? If someone in China does something
with the data that is legal in China, but illegal in Canada, will we
then be held to account for violating the license? If Canada makes a law
5 years from now that, for example, forbids the distribution of
potentially copyrighted data without assuring the identity of the person
contributing - will we then have to delete this data again?

I'm not comfortable with this and I'd rather have it from the city of
Calgary that their wording is silly, than from a random American who
interprets it.


Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

More information about the Imports mailing list