I think you are misunderstanding my concern. Naturally we are not negating that there may be cases in which we are liable for damages because a court comes to the conclusion that we negligent in one way or the other, but that would be in court where we have a chance to defend ourselves against such a claim (or more likely in which we would negotiate a settlement). My only question is if the 2nd part of 6.3 does not essentially amount to an agreement to indemnify the "Data Providing Organisation" in situations in which we wouldn't be able to defend ourselves against the claim of "wrongful misconducting".
"The same reimbursement rule for wrongful misconducting shall be applied to the User when the damaged one is a third party and the compensations have already been disbursed by the Data Providing Organization to the third party due to a legal claim." IMHO a local Taiwanese counsel needs to answer the question, it is not a question of my interpretation. Simon PS: CC BY is not compatible with the ODbL, see https://blog.openstreetmap.org/2017/03/17/use-of-cc-by-data/ for more information Am 17.05.2017 um 07:03 schrieb Rex Tsai: > Hi, > > Since the open data on data.gov.tw from Taiwan government > covers only Taiwan, I assumed that any legal case will be following > Taiwan law and Taiwan Civil Code. > > On your concern, "does useful things with the data" does not mean > a mapper can just import the data negligently. I believe any import > process or routing algorithms should be designed and implemented > carefully. > > In Article 184 of Taiwan Civil Code[1], it said: > "A person, who violates a statutory provision enacted for the protection > of others and therefore prejudice to others, is bound to compensate for > the injury, EXCEPT NO NEGLIGENCE IN HIS ACT CAN BE PROVIDED." > > In the license[2] clause 6.2, it also removes the liable for damage claims > from "Data Providing Organisation". > > 6.2. The Data Providing Organization shall not be liable for damage or > loss User encounters when he/she makes use of the Open Data provided > under the License. This disclaimer applies as well when User has third > parties encountered damage or loss and thus has been claimed for > remedies. Unless otherwise specified according to law, the Data > Providing Organization SHALL NOT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FO > ANY DAMAGES OR COMPENSATIONS HEREIN. > > I read that as warning said the data importer is responsible if he/she > intentionally messed up with the data, or not give warning notice about > the risks of routing algorithms > > If you don't feel comfortable about the terms, the Open Government > Data License also allow the data to be licensed under Creative Commons > Attribution License 4.0 International in clause 4.2. > > [1] http://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=B0000001 > [2] http://data.gov.tw/license#eng > Cheers > -Rex > > 2017-05-17 2:25 GMT+08:00 Simon Poole <si...@poole.ch>: >> Good to see that 6.3 at least raised half an eye brow with the OKFN, >> they seem to however chosen the most harmless interpretation possible, >> my reading would be that it could be equivalent to a hold >> harmless/indemnification clause. Now for probably 99.9% of OKFNs >> audience the concerns are probably irrelevant, but OpenStreetMap: >> >> - does useful things with the data >> >> - distributes the data as Open Data further so that other people and >> organisations can do useful things with it >> >> Useful things include maps, routing and so on. As a result the exposure >> to something going wrong can be quite large, and the scenario in which >> the "Data Providing Organisation" makes a pay out to a US Tourist suing >> everybody in sight for whatever mishap and then tries to recover the >> money by trying to get it from us is not so far fetched. Article 184 is >> naturally fairly standard fare as legislation goes, but I'm at a bit of >> a loss seeing were that ties in to the 2nd part of 6.3 which would make >> us liable for damage claims that we could not directly defend ourselves >> against. >> >> Simon >> >> >> Am 16.05.2017 um 13:23 schrieb Rex Tsai: >>> Hi, >>> >>> "Open Government Data License Taiwan 1.0" just has been approved as >>> Open Definition Conformant License[1] last month. >>> >>> There were some discussion[2] about clause 6.3, it does not impose any >>> additional agreement nor does it impose any restrictions, but a >>> reminding and a corresponding clause to Article 184 of Taiwan Civil >>> Code[3]. >>> >>> We also discussed the issue of 3.2, when I proposed to include NLSC tile >>> into editor-layer-index[4]. However, as the local community does not >>> have a registered legal entity, we don't have a written agreement on the >>> attribution requirement. >>> >>> If you like to import the data from data.gov.tw, please kindly follow >>> the import process, so we can notify the copyright holder for the >>> requested attribution. >>> >>> [1] http://opendefinition.org/licenses/ >>> [2] >>> https://discuss.okfn.org/t/license-approval-request-open-government-data-license-taiwan-1-0/4593/12 >>> [3] http://law.moj.gov.tw/Eng/LawClass/LawAll.aspx?PCode=B0000001 >>> [4] https://github.com/osmlab/editor-layer-index/pull/255 >>> [5] https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Guidelines >>> >>> Cheers >>> -Rex >>> >>> On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 05:49:46AM +0800, 積丹尼 Dan Jacobson wrote: >>>> OK thanks Simon for the clarification! >>>> I'll ask the participants of >>>> https://www.facebook.com/groups/odtwn/permalink/1927450013936074/?comment_id=1927539973927078 >>>> and >>>> https://discuss.okfn.org/t/license-approval-request-open-government-data-license-taiwan-1-0/4593/12 >>>> to chime in here to get this straightened out! >>>> >>>>>>>>> "SP" == Simon Poole <simon at poole.ch> writes: >>>> SP> As has already been pointed out 3.2 could be problematic. The >>>> SP> translation is a bit wobbly and unclear, but if I understand it >>>> SP> correctly the intent is to reference a data set specific attribution >>>> SP> requirement that would naturally have to be looked at for any specific >>>> SP> data use. >>>> >>>> SP> The really killer is however 6.3 (which should have a different section >>>> SP> header) which I suspect is incompatible with the Open Definition and a >>>> SP> lot of other stuff (including common sense :-)). >>>> >>>> SP> Simon >>>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> legal-talk mailing list >>> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >>> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> legal-talk mailing list >> legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >> > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
