[OSM-legal-talk] Advice regarding terms from an agency
Hi. The National Land Survey of Iceland has made their data free of charge and offer them as downloads. It spans numerous datasets which would be invaluable to the mapping progress in Iceland. However, there are terms which must be agreed before access can be legally obtained. The terms state that a distribution and publication permission is required for every further distribution or publication. I've talked to them today and the ministry to drop this condition in the terms and the director of the agency offered what I discuss in the next paragraph. The director of the agency responded to an e-mail I sent and has said attribution in the Contributor's page (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Contributors) suffices. The terms as they are now do state all derived works need a copyright symbol and the name of the agency (unless the agency asks otherwise, which I think they will invoke in our case). But the agency also wants the terms to be displayed on said wiki page, including the condition that a special permission must be obtained for every further distribution or publication of those who retrieve data (for Iceland) from the OSM database. I suspect that such a condition is not in the spirit of open data but nevertheless I decided to inquire about it anyway. Would such a condition for data be acceptable for data contributions? If the terms would be on the wiki page, would they be legally binding for whoever downloads the data? The terms are displayed at http://www.lmi.is/almennir-skilmalar/ so you can get the full picture. There should be a Google Translate option at the top of the page. With regards, Svavar Kjarrval signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] GADM and Bolivia
Whoops - wrong cc. Too tired + autocomplete. Not that there's anything secret, just no need to say anything much if we got permission. Just a random work item from the DWG. > From: Paul Norman [mailto:penor...@mac.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 12:32 AM > Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] GADM and Bolivia > > I'm sure we're all overjoyed to have this come up again... > > Background/refresher: > > GADM is a global administrative boundary dataset under a non-commercial > license. Some people imported data from it into OSM, not realizing (or > not > caring) that it was incompatible with CC BY-SA, ODbL as well as any open > license. > > At the time of the redaction we found this out and Simon asked about > Ecuador, Ivory Coast, Turkey, Uganda, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, > Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria. > > We received permission for Turkey, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, > Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria but GADM couldn't grant the > rights in Ecuador, Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, and Mozambique. > > While looking at something else I came across an import of > administrative boundaries from GADM in Bolivia. This was not identified > at the time by looking at the wiki, so we never asked GADM about it. > > The one changeset I've identified is > http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3993096, by LLAQWA, the > person who imported Ecuador GADM data that had to be redacted. Previous > efforts to contact him were unsuccessful, so I see no point in trying > again. > > Simon is skiing, so what I propose doing is contacting the person from > GADM who replied before, and if they can't grant permission then it'll > need to be redacted. > > I was unable to identify any way of contacting the Bolivian community, > or even if there is one. I don't think that it changes much anyways - if > we can't get permission, we need to redact. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] GADM and Bolivia
I'm sure we're all overjoyed to have this come up again... Background/refresher: GADM is a global administrative boundary dataset under a non-commercial license. Some people imported data from it into OSM, not realizing (or not caring) that it was incompatible with CC BY-SA, ODbL as well as any open license. At the time of the redaction we found this out and Simon asked about Ecuador, Ivory Coast, Turkey, Uganda, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Jordan, Kenya, Mozambique, Rwanda, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria. We received permission for Turkey, Bahrain, Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Syria but GADM couldn't grant the rights in Ecuador, Uganda, Rwanda, Kenya, and Mozambique. While looking at something else I came across an import of administrative boundaries from GADM in Bolivia. This was not identified at the time by looking at the wiki, so we never asked GADM about it. The one changeset I've identified is http://www.openstreetmap.org/browse/changeset/3993096, by LLAQWA, the person who imported Ecuador GADM data that had to be redacted. Previous efforts to contact him were unsuccessful, so I see no point in trying again. Simon is skiing, so what I propose doing is contacting the person from GADM who replied before, and if they can't grant permission then it'll need to be redacted. I was unable to identify any way of contacting the Bolivian community, or even if there is one. I don't think that it changes much anyways - if we can't get permission, we need to redact. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
