[OSM-legal-talk] Is this click through agreement compatible with OSM?
The city of San Francisco has made a bunch of geo data available. I plan on importing the address nodes so that we can have door to door routing for San Francisco and for geocoding purposes. I just want to see if the click through is compatible. My understanding is that the data is basically public domain and the agreement is mostly a hold harmless type of thing. This is based on my reading of it and what they city has told me they intend it to be. I have asked about this before and there were problems but the city changed the click through to address those problems. The agreement is located here: http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfshare/index2.asp. Thoughts? Cheers, Greg ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is this click through agreement compatible with OSM?
On 09/12/2010 22:16, Gregory Arenius wrote: The city of San Francisco has made a bunch of geo data available. I plan on importing the address nodes so that we can have door to door routing for San Francisco and for geocoding purposes. I just want to see if the click through is compatible. My understanding is that the data is basically public domain and the agreement is mostly a hold harmless type of thing. This is based on my reading of it and what they city has told me they intend it to be. I have asked about this before and there were problems but the city changed the click through to address those problems. The agreement is located here: http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfshare/index2.asp. Thoughts? I would tend to agree with you, from my quick read it looks like a big disclaimer. It does say that individual elements may have there own terms so I would ensure double check that none of these apply to the data you're looking at. Cheers Chris PS: Usual disclaimers apply ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is this click through agreement compatible with OSM?
On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Gregory Arenius wrote: > city changed the click through to address those problems. The agreement is > located here: http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfshare/index2.asp. See this clause: >These Terms of Use do not grant You any title or right to any such >intellectual property rights that the City or others may have in the GIS Data. Translation: "You don't own it." Now see this clause: >You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder Translation: "You don't own it, you can't add it." (I'm glad this isn't just about Nearmap now.) Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is this click through agreement compatible with OSM?
Making sure mike sees this thread... He's been talking to the same people I believe. Steve stevecoast.com On Dec 11, 2010, at 1:27 PM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Gregory Arenius wrote: >> city changed the click through to address those problems. The agreement is >> located here: http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfshare/index2.asp. > > See this clause: >> These Terms of Use do not grant You any title or right to any such >> intellectual property rights that the City or others may have in the GIS >> Data. > > Translation: "You don't own it." > > Now see this clause: >> You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder > > Translation: "You don't own it, you can't add it." > > (I'm glad this isn't just about Nearmap now.) > > Steve > > ___ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk > ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is this click through agreement compatible with OSM?
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Gregory Arenius > wrote: > > city changed the click through to address those problems. The agreement > is > > located here: http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfshare/index2.asp. > > See this clause: > >These Terms of Use do not grant You any title or right to any such > intellectual property rights that the City or others may have in the GIS > Data. > > Translation: "You don't own it." > The full clause is: IV. City's intellectual property rights not affected If the City claims or seeks to protect any patent, copyright, or other intellectual property rights in any GIS Data, the website will so indicate in the file containing such GIS Data or on the page from which such GIS Data is accessed. These Terms of Use do not grant You any title or right to any such intellectual property rights that the City or others may have in the GIS Data. I read this as saying that the terms of use, which are there as a hold harmless waiver, don't grant any rights. It specifically states that if the city is claiming copyright on the data it will do so in the file or on the website that the file is accessed from. The file in question has no such claims. > > Now see this clause: > >You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder > > Translation: "You don't own it, you can't add it." > > I believe you're refering to the CTs. My understanding is that the current draft states: "You represent and warrant that, to the best of your knowledge, You are legally entitled to grant the licence in Sections 2 and 3 below." My understanding is that I am legally entitled to grant that license because the city isn't claiming copyright on the data. Its public domain and as such can be added. I think the current draft of the CTs was changed to accommodate such things. > (I'm glad this isn't just about Nearmap now.) > > I sympathize with the Nearmap issues but I'm not sure that this is a comparable situation. I've heard a lot of differing opinions on this issue but my reading is that everything is okay. I don't just want to steamroll through if other people think otherwise but I do think that we're okay using this data. Is there a way to get a more definitive reading of things? A working group or something? Cheers, Gregory Arenius ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is this click through agreement compatible with OSM?
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Gregory Arenius wrote: > I read this as saying that the terms of use, which are there as a hold > harmless waiver, don't grant any rights. It specifically states that if the > city is claiming copyright on the data it will do so in the file or on the > website that the file is accessed from. The file in question has no such > claims. Ok, well argued. > My understanding is that I am legally entitled to grant that license because > the city isn't claiming copyright on the data. Its public domain and as > such can be added. I think the current draft of the CTs was changed to > accommodate such things. One thing I'm curious about is the terms about indemnifying the City of SF against possible harm resulting from using the data. Let's say hypothetically that some third party uses the data that you incorporated into OSM, crashed their car due to bad data, and hypothetically they could sue someone over it. Now the OSM license disclaims liability (on the part of OSMF?) but does that other idemnification apply? (Actually I'm not sure what I'm asking actually makes sense.) Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is this click through agreement compatible with OSM?
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Steve Bennett wrote: > On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Gregory Arenius > wrote: > > > I read this as saying that the terms of use, which are there as a hold > > harmless waiver, don't grant any rights. It specifically states that if > the > > city is claiming copyright on the data it will do so in the file or on > the > > website that the file is accessed from. The file in question has no such > > claims. > > Ok, well argued. > > > My understanding is that I am legally entitled to grant that license > because > > the city isn't claiming copyright on the data. Its public domain and as > > such can be added. I think the current draft of the CTs was changed to > > accommodate such things. > > One thing I'm curious about is the terms about indemnifying the City > of SF against possible harm resulting from using the data. Let's say > hypothetically that some third party uses the data that you > incorporated into OSM, crashed their car due to bad data, and > hypothetically they could sue someone over it. Now the OSM license > disclaims liability (on the part of OSMF?) but does that other > idemnification apply? (Actually I'm not sure what I'm asking actually > makes sense.) > > I understand your question and it does make sense. I'd think if they used our data under a license that disclaims liability that that would be the end of it but. Cheers, Gregory Arenius ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
