[OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Wed Aug 24 16:56:59 BST 2011


But probably the buck would stop with the OSMF. Distributing data just
because somebody on the web said it was PD has a high likelihood of being
considered negligent.

Simon

Am 24.08.2011 17:45, schrieb yarrel at gmail.com:
> If you lie about your ability to PD data, you are liable for the effects.
>
> Whatever you do or don't sign.
>
> - Rob.
> -- 
> Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
>
> "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" <g.gremmen at cetest.nl> 
> wrote:
>
>     Signing (clicking) the CT explicitly transfers the
>     liability of the suitability to the contributor,
>     where declaring PD does not.
>     The Board wants us to sign a contract with them.
>     It's not about data but about compliance.
>
>
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Gert Gremmen,
>
>
>
>     -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
>     Van: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:richard at systemeD.net]
>     Verzonden: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:53 PM
>     Aan: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>     Onderwerp: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as
>     PD
>
>     There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August
>     (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df).
>
>     >  Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their
>     >  contributions are public
>     domain.
>     >
>     >  There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be
>     >  maintained in the current OSM database even after a switch to
>     >  ODbL.
>     >
>     >  A very small number of contributors have declined the new
>     >  contributor terms and asserted that the their contributions are in
>     >  the public domain.  This does not mean that the collective data in
>     >  the OSM database is public domain. Their 'PD' position contradicts
>     >  the explicit decline. Therefore the LWG takes the position that
>     >  their contributions cannot be published under ODbL without
>     >  acceptance of the contribut[or terms].
>
>     (I think the two contributors affected by this are Tim Sheerman-Chase
>     and
>     Florian Lohoff, but there may be others.)
>
>     I'm a little puzzled by this. "Asserting that one's contributions are in
>     the public domain" is saying, in the words of the disclaimer used on
>     Wikipedia and on
>     the OSM wiki, "I grant anyone the right to use my
>     contributions for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such
>     conditions are required by law".
>
>     Therefore I don't see any reason why the data cannot be included in OSM.
>     The contributor has given a grant of all rights - not just copyright,
>     but
>     any database right or indeed other right that might exist. There is no
>     difference between (say) TimSC's PD data and the TIGER PD data, but
>     we're
>     not requiring the US Census Bureau to sign the terms.[1]
>
>     The minute says "Their 'PD' position contradicts the explicit decline",
>     which seems to me to be true legally but not "politically". There are
>     people who do not wish to enter into a formal agreement with OSMF, and
>     though I think they're mistaken, they doubtless have their own reasons.
>
>     What am I missing? What exactly is meant by "the collective data in the
>     OSM database"?
>
>     cheers
>     Richard
>
>     [1] I am diplomatically ignoring the fact that there is no proof that US
>     Federal data is public domain _outside_ the States ;)
>
>
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     legal-talk mailing list
>     legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>     http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>     legal-talk mailing list
>     legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>     http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20110824/42546659/attachment.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list