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

Simon Poole simon at poole.ch
Thu Aug 25 08:53:04 BST 2011


I believe that you don't really want to start a discussion where good 
faith stops
and negligence begins, but there is a line somewhere there.

Having an agreement with the mapper along the lines of the CTs is 
clearly safe(*),
a statement on his wiki page, who knows?

Simon

* forgetting about jurisdiction etc.

Am 25.08.2011 03:22, schrieb 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20110825/f526947a/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list