Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
On 23/08/2010 01:34, Richard Weait wrote:
That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual
conversation with one lawyer ("casual" as in I wasn't paying the
lawyer)
Thanks Richard. What we could do with from the LWG (and I'm sure that
they will look at doing it) is a "here are the new CTs and the new
licence, and here's how we think that it affects you if you've
previously used data from XYZ in OSM and/or intend to do so in the
future" for each large XYZ (Yahoo, OS Opendata, etc.).
I was told that legal-English is not FORTRAN
Be grateful for small mercies I suppose...
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 8:34 PM, Richard Weait wrote:
> That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual
> conversation with one lawyer ("casual" as in I wasn't paying the
> lawyer) I was told that legal-English is not FORTRAN and the or is not
> required for legal-English syntax. This one lawyer does not trump the
> OSMF lawyer, this is just one data point.
What jurisdiction(s) did that lawyer practice in?
Also, did you get a chance to ask him if the second sentence (*)
applies "If You are not the copyright holder of the Contents"?
In any case, as a contract of adhesion, the courts are likely to
interpret the contract in favor of the non-OSMF litigant.
(*) "You represent and warrant that You are legally entitled to grant
the license in Section 2 below and that such license does not violate
any law, breach any contract, or, to the best of Your knowledge,
infringe any third party’s rights."
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 7:58 PM, SomeoneElse
wrote:
> On 22/08/2010 15:27, Mike Collinson wrote:
>>
>> http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly
>> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY
>> 0.1
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM
>> 0.2
>>
>> Mike
>>
> Thanks Mike. Any idea how or why the "or" got lost from para 1 between 0.2
> and 1.0? Without it para 1 in 1.0 seems self-contradictory to me?
That's an open question for the lawyer that wrote the CT. In casual
conversation with one lawyer ("casual" as in I wasn't paying the
lawyer) I was told that legal-English is not FORTRAN and the or is not
required for legal-English syntax. This one lawyer does not trump the
OSMF lawyer, this is just one data point. Perhaps any lawyers on this
list would comment on this matter in general?
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Contributor Terms - The Early Years
On 22/08/2010 15:27, Mike Collinson wrote: http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Working_Group_Minutes or directly https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1lVQlsnuEKPY2gjspScwHqgmo8RyoqmuaWWmWh58T4TY 0.1 https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=18q0b_f_-rtuWWC04qaAcO3NY_Aob2QjY2gGRMmo0IrM 0.2 Mike Thanks Mike. Any idea how or why the "or" got lost from para 1 between 0.2 and 1.0? Without it para 1 in 1.0 seems self-contradictory to me? Cheers, Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
