[Imports] Redmond WA Address Import proposal

[Greg Troxel]

Matthew Whilden <matthew.whilden at gmail.com> writes:

> Tracking back a bit further, there's this thread from the local user group
> getting permission to use the data in 2012. (
> https://groups.google.com/g/osm-seattle/c/XhQwyBlkqeI?hl=en) Should I
> understand that this permission should be considered expired? Not covering
> the data I wish to use? Some other thing?

I read the email saying

  Yes, including the King County data disclaimers in the same manner as
  you are doing for the city of Seattle would be fine.

as permission to treat clause 7:

  7. Should you use the Data for any purposes, you agree to provide the
  following legend, prominently displayed: "Data provided by permission
  of King County" unless otherwise agreed in advance by King County in
  writing. Other than displaying this legend, you are not authorized to
  make any use of any proprietary service marks of King County,
  including the King County logo, or any confusingly similar variant
  thereof.

as being fulfilled ("prominently displayed") by the Contributors page.
This was the question that was asked.

What I don't see in the email is:

  You can ignore the rest of the terms.  In particular, for OSM use:

    -  1. We alter item 1 that say the license for OSM is irrevocable.

    -  8. Normally we say that this data might actually be copyrighted by
          some third party, and if it is and you copy it, that copyright
          infringement is your problem.  We believe that for dataset X,
          no third parties have copyright claims.

    - 12. We agree to strike the indemnification clause entirely from
          the license.

So I don't think there was actually ever permission to copy the data in
way that met the Contributor Terms (or the OSM license at the time).  It
was just a statement that they consider a line on the Contrbutors wiki
page to meet the requirement for "prominently displayed".


A point that may not be obvious is that (to the extent this data is
actually subject to copyright, a question that OSM doctrine says shall
be assumed to be true) permission is needed not only to send the data to
OSM, but for OSM to distribute to others, and so on, under the OSM
license.  This license requires that everyone receiving the data has to
agree to indemnification.  OSM does not require that when obtaining a
copy of the database.  So it's not possible for the license to be
followed.


As I see it, this license is really unreasonable.   In talking to them,
I would try to explore "Are Google, Apple, and others using this data?
How can that be, with the indemnification clause?  Are they really
entering into indemnification contracts with their users?  Or did they
get different terms?".
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 194 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/imports/attachments/20221124/7b0df0c4/attachment.sig>