[Osmf-talk] Can we untick the Public domain checkbox from our initial choice done during OSM sign up?
Simon Poole
simon at poole.ch
Wed Oct 2 20:33:31 UTC 2019
I would have to respectfully disagree, as the problem is not only the
text of the checkbox itself, but the facts that the explanatory text
changed multiple times -and- for a significant amount of time checking
the checkbox was (accidentally) presented essentially as a mandatory
part of the signup process.
In summary, while well intended, the events conspired to make the
checkbox useless.
IMHO we have two, well three, ways forwards:
- remove the check box and all information associated with it,
- reset the field, agree on what checking it should mean legally (rather
tricky), and ask on login to re-decide what the value should be,
- continue to raise the question once per year, and getting me to
respond with the above.
Simon
On 01.10.2019 23:56, Kathleen Lu via osmf-talk wrote:
> I agree with Arlo. While the meaning of the checkbox is not 100%
> clear, I disagree that it "has no legal significance." While OSMF
> would not be in a position to conclusively declare such contributions
> as public domain, as OSMF cannot be certain to the extent of
> financially betting on the conclusion, that is not the same thing as
> it being meaningless. At the very least, someone who forked OSM and
> used only the edits that are PD would have a reason to believe such
> use was noninfringing. Even if that belief turned out to be incorrect
> for some number of contributors or contributions, it would lower the
> possible damages that could be claimed.
>
> Severin, I suggest if you are concerned that you simply make a new
> account and not check the box.
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 1, 2019 at 4:43 PM Arlo Barnes <arlo.barnes at gmail.com
> <mailto:arlo.barnes at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
> I have the box checked, and while I understand that my edits
> bundled with everyone else's are licensed under the ODbL (not a
> dual-licensing arrangement), I expected then and still expect that
> if someone wanted to reuse data originating solely from my edits
> (or a combination of solely my edits and edits of others who had
> that box checked at the time they made the edit), they could opt
> to do so with absolutely as few restrictions as disclaimable by me.
> To my eye, the difference between that expectation and 'legal
> significance' is unclear, and would come down to the opinion of a
> judge (as much copyright law ultimately does).
> After all, what elements of a contract (and I think a license or
> disclaiming of rights are merely contracts with a general public)
> are not present in such a communication?
> I wouldn't be upset if the Foundation wanted to simplify the
> situation by removing the box, but I don't think assertions who
> foundations are at best not obvious can act as justification for
> such action; only community consensus that this would be a good
> move can.
> -Arlo
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org <mailto:osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> osmf-talk mailing list
> osmf-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/attachments/20191002/6941199c/attachment.html>
More information about the osmf-talk
mailing list