[Imports] Calgary addresses

[James]

All that doesnt matter Brian as they can pass legal costs on to
OpenStreetMaps if they get sued. License is incompatible with
openstreetmaps. Period. Read this section as stated as before.


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.

On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Brian May <bmay at mapwise.com> wrote:

> Don't Alberta statutes define what any government operating within Alberta
> can and can't do with public records?
>
> For example, the statutes should define whether the City of Calgary can
> add additional conditions of release of public records such as an
> indemnification clause or the "unlawful purposes" clause.
>
> List of public records laws websites in Canada:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_information_in_Canada
>
> Alberta's Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act
>
> http://www.qp.alberta.ca/1266.cfm?page=F25.cfm&leg_type=Acts&isbncln=9780779743568
>
> Search on "unlawful" in the doc:
> ---
> Disclosure harmful to law enforcement
> 20(1) The head of a public body may refuse to disclose
> information to an applicant if the disclosure could reasonably be
> expected to
> (k) facilitate the commission of an unlawful act or hamper the
> control of crime,
> ----
>
> Search on "indemnification" and "indemnify" in the doc:
> ----
> no results
> ----
>
> On the unlawful part, doesn't seem to me that OSM "reasonably expects
> users of OSM to (k) facilitate the commission of an unlawful act or hamper
> the control of crime". Why would the city release the addresses at all if
> the city "reasonably expects..."
>
> On the in indemnification part, I'm not sure which way that goes. For
> example, if its not addressed in the statute, they can't add that. Or if
> its not in the statue, they can add that. Seems to me if it was the latter,
> then they could add whatever restrictions they wanted and that would go
> against the spirit of the law. Is the indemnification clause something that
> is just generically added to many documents that are produced by the city?
>
> The point is that the cities public records laws are governed by the
> province's public records laws and they can't just add things they feel
> like. And if they do and it clearly doesn't square with the law, it can be
> ignored.
>
> If its not so clear, then I suppose clarification from the city is the
> best option. A small team of lawyers to help with clarification would be
> nice.  Does OSM have any legal volunteers that help out with these issues?
>
> Brian
>
>
> On 7/19/2016 7:32 AM, James wrote:
>
> If Calgary is able to change to the open gov license v.2 (
> http://open.canada.ca/en/open-government-licence-canada) it would be
> compatible with openstreetmap, but until then the chance of getting sued
> and the specific clause against possible illegal activities (which would
> invalidate our license agreement) prevent us from importing the data
>
> /EndOfDiscussion
>
> On Jul 19, 2016 7:24 AM, "Greg Troxel" <gdt at ir.bbn.com> wrote:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
> > James <james2432 at gmail.com> writes:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > I agree that an indemnification clause is totally unacceptable.  Until
> > that's fixed, the rest of the discussion is just an excuse for nerds to
> > argue :-)
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imports mailing listImports at openstreetmap.orghttps://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Imports mailing list
> Imports at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
>
>


-- 
外に遊びに行こう！
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20160719/8eb0dd80/attachment.html>