----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Collinson" <m...@ayeltd.biz>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>;
"David Groom" <revi...@pacific-rim.net>
Cc: "OSMF License Working Group" <le...@osmfoundation.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:36 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions on the Contributors Term
At 12:02 PM 11/08/2010, David Groom wrote:
2) Where does PD data (mainly TIGER, NHS, NPS, NAIP imagery, USGS
imagery) fall with regards to contributor terms, specifically "You have
**explicit** permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents
and grant the licence below"?'
The general answer is that PD licenses, and
specifically the terms under which US government
releases data, allow any use. That gives you
explicit permission to submit the data.
Not in my opinion it doesn't. In my opinion it gives you **permission**,
or it gives you **implicit** permission, but it does not give you
**explicit** permission
I raised this point on this list on 20 July 2010 and got no answer, so
last week I emailed the Licence Working Group to raise this point with
them.
David
David,
Sorry if I have not answered you, it must have been someone else with the
same question.
Please would someone else from the License Working Group verify my memory
as it is an important point:
We made the same question as you to our legal counsel when we reviewed his
initial draft and asked if we could change/remove it, particularly as,
like you, we felt it confusing. Our understanding was that it would be a
very bad idea. The realm of implicit permission being unclear and falling
into the realm of "Well, you did not say I couldn't kill you".
As I recall, the rationale is:
If a license allows anyone any use, that is explicit permission -->
Anyone is a set including "You" --> "You" have explicit permission.
I also have to draft a question on OS StreetView to our legal counsel, and
will be happy to include this for double verification.
Mike
Mike
Thank you for your reply.
The CT terms state "You represent and warrant that You have explicit
permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the
license below".
To my mind explicit permission would require both that :
a) the permission was explicitly given to me;
b) that the permission given explicitly mentioned the ability to "submit the
Contents [to OSM] and grant the license below".
Given that the sort of instances I have been talking about, such as PD data,
or data with general CC-BY-SA clauses do not cover points (a) or (b) above
you may see why I have difficulty in thinking I can agree to the CT terms.
If there is legal opinion on this it would be helpful if it were published
so that it would help those like me who have concerns about our ability to
agree to the CT as currently worded.
David
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
