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

[SteveC]

On 8/24/2011 8:56 AM, Simon Poole wrote:
>
> 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.

You need to search around for "safe harbor provisions".

Steve


>
> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110824/4477c54e/attachment.html>