Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms
2009/7/3 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com: My point is that granting powers to relicense the data is basically equivalent to copyright assignment (plus certain conditions, as happens when you assign copyright to the FSF, they promise to keep to a free licence in the future), but it is better to call a spade a spade. Technically (at least in English law), no. Its a sublicence rather than an assignmentt. They are distinct. Many jurisdictions impose formality conditions on assignments of copyright that they do not on licences. In a licensing situation the licensor retains their ownership of the copyright, contrast the assignment situation. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Francis Davey schrieb: No (though you will often see small print disclaimers on them). The idea of restricting access to age 13+ strikes me as odd in the extreme. When I get some time I'll do some research into what is going on in the US that makes them do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act Though apparently there is some sort of exception for non-profits. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Hi, Ulf Möller wrote: No (though you will often see small print disclaimers on them). The idea of restricting access to age 13+ strikes me as odd in the extreme. When I get some time I'll do some research into what is going on in the US that makes them do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act Should we perhaps have two sets of Terms and Condition - one that applies if the user is in the USA, and the other if he isn't? One with 200 lines of text, the other with 10? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Ulf Möller wrote: No (though you will often see small print disclaimers on them). The idea of restricting access to age 13+ strikes me as odd in the extreme. When I get some time I'll do some research into what is going on in the US that makes them do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act Should we perhaps have two sets of Terms and Condition - one that applies if the user is in the USA, and the other if he isn't? One with 200 lines of text, the other with 10? i'll suggest that to our lawyer, but this might mean having more than two sets - apparently Canada and Australia have their own versions of COPPA. and i guess the EU has something similar. it may end requiring us to to have a different set of TsCs for each jurisdiction. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Printed maps and new license
On Fri, Jul 03, 2009 at 03:30:01PM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote: If you have enough room then we prefer the URLs for OSM and CC written out. There is some info here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ#I_would_like_to_use_OpenStreetMap_maps._How_should_I_credit_you.3F Now that we have it, can osm.org be used as an alternative? I.e. prefer full expanded URIs/domains, but if space is too limited you can use osm.org instead of www.openstreetmap.org, and if it’s still too much you might then omit the URIs completely. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall signature.asc Description: Digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/7/4 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com: i'll suggest that to our lawyer, but this might mean having more than two sets - apparently Canada and Australia have their own versions of COPPA. and i guess the EU has something similar. it may end requiring us to to have a different set of TsCs for each jurisdiction. From having a read through COPPA it seems that it would not apply to someone merely looking at or using the map - unless personal information is somehow harvested in the process which seems unlikely - but it might apply to a situation where children signed up. This illustrates a wider point: if people are going through a sign-up process then at that stage its entirely reasonable to ask them to agree to a set of terms and conditions (which can be as simple as don't be an idiot). Many sites do that and do that in a lightweight and inoffensive way. After all if you want to join in you should probably told what the local culture is like. On the other hand terms and conditions for use of the *site* (as opposed to signing up for an account) would not (as far as a 1 minute skim read suggests) require any compliance with COPPA. For my part I cannot see any obvious need for a whole-site-applies-to-everyone-even-those-without-accounts terms and conditions. But - and I boringly restate this point because I'm not sure its been necessarily understood - it depends what you are trying to do. There's no legal right or wrong it all depends on what you want to do. My guess is that you don't need TC's of the kind outlined but I could be wrong. Though I do draft and litigate contracts for a living I only do so in England and Wales. I have a nodding acquaintance with some relevant law in other jurisdictions, but if you are particularly concerned about getting things right world-wide you might want a team effort 8-). -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Case_law http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Statute_law Thanks, I've had a look at that. It seems to agree with the usual layman's view of the subject: that facts are not copyrightable, though the expression of them may be; and that many countries recognize a database right. Bear in mind also that Creative Commons themselves have said several times that CC-BY-SA is not suitable for OSM. For example, In the United States, data will be protected by copyright only if they express creativity. Some databases will satisfy this condition, such as a database containing poetry or a wiki containing prose. Many databases, however, contain factual information that may have taken a great deal of effort to gather, such as the results of a series of complicated and creative experiments. Nonetheless, that information is not protected by copyright and cannot be licensed under the terms of a Creative Commons license. Is anyone seriously suggesting that because factual information is not covered by copyright, then in countries where no database right is recognized, map data can be copied with impunity? If so, then it will be okay to start copying data from pre-1990s Ordnance Survey maps? I know this point has been raised many times, and the discussion tends to go in circles, but I think it has never been satisfactorily answered. Either copyright applies to map data or it doesn't; and if it doesn't, then why are we wasting time walking round with GPS devices? If it is the settled view of the OSM project, based on legal advice, that copyright plus CC-BY-SA does not protect the Openstreetmap geodata from being copied and incorporated into other works, can an official statement be made to this effect? It would save a lot of effort for people like People's Map or Google, who would love to start copying the OSM data if it weren't for the pesky share-alike restrictions. But if you can't summon the energy to read all that, and I wouldn't blame you, do at least read Charlotte Waelde's paper and the key US cases (Rural vs Feist, Mason vs Montgomery). I'm reading the Montgomery one now. Which do you mean by Waelde's paper? For what it's worth, my interpretation at present is that a simple OSM map of a housing estate, such as http://osm.org/go/euwtbOAo-- , is not at all copyrightable in the US (the most liberal jurisdiction). It's a simple collection of facts - street names and geometries - arranged in an uncreative fashion, and Rural vs Feist tells us that this doesn't merit copyright. Therefore CC-BY-SA will not protect it. Interesting. Do you mean only the map, or the underlying data too? Something more intensively mapped, such as http://osm.org/go/eutDzIjd-- , may perhaps attract copyright protection for the database structure - which, in OSM, is principally the tagging system. It could go either way for the database contents, which is still pretty uncreative _given_ that structure, but could be argued to involve careful assessment of sources and so on (Mason vs Montgomery). From my experience of doing mapping, it seems there is a lot of creativity and freedom, with many distinct ways to express the same physical fact. But you might be right, perhaps in the USA map data can be freely copied. In which case the OSM project has already achieved its aim (of free map data) kind of by default, and all that remains is to view some areas in Google Maps and start copying in the streets and other features. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Jul 3, 2009, at 7:20 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: It's a public site, no passwords, no sign up required to read it, so it's for the public to read. What if somebody posts hate speech (for the USAmericans)? What if somebody adds Nazi party mapping parties to the calendar (for the Germans)? What if somebody invites women and men to a mapping party in Saudi Arabia? The question isn't what legal text do we need? but is instead What legal risks do we expect the OSMF to have to defend itself against? and if we then decide that some risks are too large to accept, What legal text do we need to ameliorate that risk? The OSMF has no a priori control over what gets posted via email to OSM editors, nor what gets posted to the Wiki. Should it have responsibility for things over which it chooses not to control? Answering these questions requires help from a lawyer. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
