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

Wed Aug 24 20:12:08 BST 2011

That's right :  +1

Now we agree. !!

And when it comes to using BING, some 

unclear things need to be cleared up, regardless

the license that will be used, for our users to be

able to use it without risk.

If not, Big Brother Microsoft might one

day own OSM, as OSM  will be 99% based

on BING and without anything but a BLOG

(from who ?) as proof.

<irony>

And our founder Steve (fake or real) will

have to show his loyalty to whom ?

</irony>

Gert

Van: Simon Poole [mailto:simon at poole.ch] 
Verzonden: woensdag 24 augustus 2011 19:40
Aan: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions
as PD

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: 

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
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

_______________________________________________
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/20110824/4b8ab9dd/attachment-0001.html>