[talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...

[David Groom]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andrew Harvey" <andrew.harvey4 at gmail.com>
To: "John Smith" <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>
Cc: "OSM Australian Talk List" <talk-au at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 29, 2010 4:57 AM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] ODBL yet again, but from a pragmatic approach...


>
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 9:53 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>> It just got pointed out to me, but anyone that has ever derived data
>> from Nearmap can't agree to the new Contributor Terms, not to mention
>> new users that already agreed to the new CTs shouldn't be deriving
>> data from Nearmap.
>
> Oh no. I remember now that when I signed up I agreed to the CTs (not
> sure which version, if it has changed), I did this with the mindset
> that any copyright that was assigned to me arising from my
> contributions, is a copyright that I don't want, and I would rather
> have that work placed in the public domain, and (not being a lawyer
> and not being able to completely understand the CTs) that clicking
> agree would make my contributions closer to the public domain.
>
> But I have since (after forgetting the CTs) also made contributions
> derived from Nearmap imagery. So it seems I have broken my agreement
> to the CTs.
>
> What should I do? Can I "unagree" to the CTs?
>

I think you have 2 simple choices:

1) YOU have to ask Nearmap if they are OK with YOU using their imagery under 
the terms of the CT

OR

2) you cant use Nearmap imagery for tracing, and you should ask for all your 
edits where you have used Nearmap imagery to be reversed out of the 
database.

What worries me greatly in all this is that we are being assured the lawyers 
know what they are doing, and yet somehow the situation you find yourself in 
has been allowed to arise.

David