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

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Wed Aug 24 18:39:44 BST 2011


Well one solution is very simple: just contribute stuff that you mapped 
yourself,
and hey presto, 99.9% of all problems vanish (including any issues with 
agreeing to
the CTs).

Simon

Am 24.08.2011 19:34, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen:
>
> Simon said:
>
> >Distributing data just
> >because somebody on the web said it was PD has a high likelihood of being
> >considered negligent.
>
> Then distributing data because someone on the web has stated that
>
>  is was CT/ODBL compliant is even negligent.
>
> If you do not provide a set of tools or rules that a user can
>
> handle to tests for license compatibility, you cannot even
>
> keep him responsible for what he clicked ages ago, probably without
>
> profound reading, let alone understanding.
>
> And as in the OSM case of uploading distributed elements of data
>
> that are often geographically unrelated by place space or source
>
> (and often of a mixed character) stating any license compatibility will
>
> be a risky business for an individual mapper.
>
> And since OSM has a defined license contract with its  mappers, it
>
> is much easier for a third party too to hold OSMF liable for any 
> breaches now
>
> instead of the individual that made a mistake.
>
> And then I do not even consider that a clicked box in combination
>
> with a username and email as an ID does not invariably
>
> lead to one person to be kept responsible.
>
> Hope I made my point clear. not easy to explain.
>
> Gert
>
> *Van:*Simon Poole [mailto:simon at poole.ch]
> *Verzonden:* woensdag 24 augustus 2011 17:57
> *Aan:* legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> *Onderwerp:* Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring 
> contributions as PD
>
>
> 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: <mailto: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> 
> <mailto: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  <mailto: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  <mailto:legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>   
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>   
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org  <mailto:legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>   
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org  <mailto: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/20110824/305d3005/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list