Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
Well we do seem to have cases with a PD statement, were the data is in fact (potentially) encumbered and the mapper probably actually wanted to apply the statement only to the data which he originally created and his edits. See TimSCs wiki page for a mapper (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:TimSC) that realized that and tries to fix it. And now the OSMF is supposed to second guess what all the mappers with similar statements really intended to say? Simon Am 26.08.2011 01:23, schrieb Ian Sergeant: Simon Poole wrote on 25/08/2011 05:53:04 PM: > Having an agreement with the mapper along the lines of the CTs is > clearly safe(*), a statement on his wiki page, who knows? I'd come down on the other side of this line. It would be easier to argue that some long click-through agreement was unread or misunderstood. An explicit statement that you have included on your wiki page that your edits are unencumbered, in the public domain and freely available for any use is pretty convincing to me. I'm still using some public domain sources to assist in contributing to OSM. I don't think anything I have agreed to in the CT prevents me from using other's PD contributions incorporated with mine, and I'm currently quite comfortable in that position. Ian. ___ 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] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
Simon Poole wrote on 25/08/2011 05:53:04 PM: > Having an agreement with the mapper along the lines of the CTs is > clearly safe(*), a statement on his wiki page, who knows? I'd come down on the other side of this line. It would be easier to argue that some long click-through agreement was unread or misunderstood. An explicit statement that you have included on your wiki page that your edits are unencumbered, in the public domain and freely available for any use is pretty convincing to me. I'm still using some public domain sources to assist in contributing to OSM. I don't think anything I have agreed to in the CT prevents me from using other's PD contributions incorporated with mine, and I'm currently quite comfortable in that position. Ian.___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
I believe that you don't really want to start a discussion where good faith stops and negligence begins, but there is a line somewhere there. Having an agreement with the mapper along the lines of the CTs is clearly safe(*), a statement on his wiki page, who knows? Simon * forgetting about jurisdiction etc. Am 25.08.2011 03:22, schrieb SteveC: On 8/24/2011 8:56 AM, Simon Poole wrote: But probably the buck would stop with the OSMF. Distributing data just because somebody on the web said it was PD has a high likelihood of being considered negligent. You need to search around for "safe harbor provisions". Steve Simon Am 24.08.2011 17:45, schrieb yar...@gmail.com: If you lie about your ability to PD data, you are liable for the effects. Whatever you do or don't sign. - Rob. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" wrote: Signing (clicking) the CT explicitly transfers the liability of the suitability to the contributor, where declaring PD does not. The Board wants us to sign a contract with them. It's not about data but about compliance. Regards, Gert Gremmen, -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] Verzonden: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:53 PM Aan:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df). > Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their > contributions are public domain. > > There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be > maintained in the current OSM database even after a switch to > ODbL. > > A very small number of contributors have declined the new > contributor terms and asserted that the their contributions are in > the public domain. This does not mean that the collective data in > the OSM database is public domain. Their 'PD' position contradicts > the explicit decline. Therefore the LWG takes the position that > their contributions cannot be published under ODbL without > acceptance of the contribut[or terms]. (I think the two contributors affected by this are Tim Sheerman-Chase and Florian Lohoff, but there may be others.) I'm a little puzzled by this. "Asserting that one's contributions are in the public domain" is saying, in the words of the disclaimer used on Wikipedia and on the OSM wiki, "I grant anyone the right to use my contributions for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law". Therefore I don't see any reason why the data cannot be included in OSM. The contributor has given a grant of all rights - not just copyright, but any database right or indeed other right that might exist. There is no difference between (say) TimSC's PD data and the TIGER PD data, but we're not requiring the US Census Bureau to sign the terms.[1] The minute says "Their 'PD' position contradicts the explicit decline", which seems to me to be true legally but not "politically". There are people who do not wish to enter into a formal agreement with OSMF, and though I think they're mistaken, they doubtless have their own reasons. What am I missing? What exactly is meant by "the collective data in the OSM database"? cheers Richard [1] I am diplomatically ignoring the fact that there is no proof that US Federal data is public domain _outside_ the States ;) 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 ___ 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 ___ 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] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
On 25 August 2011 02:00, andrzej zaborowski wrote: > This is a different topic but last I heard the CT don't assure > everything you upload is ODbL compatible, but rather than "your > contribution" is compatible with all the licenses that may be chosen > by OSMF -- and that everything you uploaded is as far as you know > compatible with the current license, i.e. CC-By-SA. > There are two separate things there: a) "your contribution" is compatible with all the licenses that may be chosen by OSMF b) everything you uploaded is as far as you know compatible with the current license, i.e. CC-By-SA. I don't think that data under any licence other than PD could satify (a) because the OSMF can chose any free an open license (subject to a vote etc.). Given the unknown conditions of a future license, you can't guarantee compatibility of your data with a future one. That means that if a re-license were to occur in future, OSMF would somehow have to figure out what data was compatible and what wasn't. I agree about (b), that it sounds like the only requirement clause 1a adds on uploaded data is compatilbility with CC-BY-SA (as it's the "current license terms"). On the assumption that clause 2 only extends as far as you can grant those rights, I don't see what would prevent someone from agreeing to the CTs and then uploading CC-BY-SA data (other than politeness and social pressure). After the transition to ODbL, I would assume that people are okay with contributors uploading ODbL-licensed data; for example something that they have downloaded and then edited. -- James ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
On 8/24/2011 8:56 AM, Simon Poole wrote: But probably the buck would stop with the OSMF. Distributing data just because somebody on the web said it was PD has a high likelihood of being considered negligent. You need to search around for "safe harbor provisions". Steve Simon Am 24.08.2011 17:45, schrieb yar...@gmail.com: If you lie about your ability to PD data, you are liable for the effects. Whatever you do or don't sign. - Rob. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" wrote: Signing (clicking) the CT explicitly transfers the liability of the suitability to the contributor, where declaring PD does not. The Board wants us to sign a contract with them. It's not about data but about compliance. Regards, Gert Gremmen, -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] Verzonden: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:53 PM Aan:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df). > Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their > contributions are public domain. > > There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be > maintained in the current OSM database even after a switch to > ODbL. > > A very small number of contributors have declined the new > contributor terms and asserted that the their contributions are in > the public domain. This does not mean that the collective data in > the OSM database is public domain. Their 'PD' position contradicts > the explicit decline. Therefore the LWG takes the position that > their contributions cannot be published under ODbL without > acceptance of the contribut[or terms]. (I think the two contributors affected by this are Tim Sheerman-Chase and Florian Lohoff, but there may be others.) I'm a little puzzled by this. "Asserting that one's contributions are in the public domain" is saying, in the words of the disclaimer used on Wikipedia and on the OSM wiki, "I grant anyone the right to use my contributions for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law". Therefore I don't see any reason why the data cannot be included in OSM. The contributor has given a grant of all rights - not just copyright, but any database right or indeed other right that might exist. There is no difference between (say) TimSC's PD data and the TIGER PD data, but we're not requiring the US Census Bureau to sign the terms.[1] The minute says "Their 'PD' position contradicts the explicit decline", which seems to me to be true legally but not "politically". There are people who do not wish to enter into a formal agreement with OSMF, and though I think they're mistaken, they doubtless have their own reasons. What am I missing? What exactly is meant by "the collective data in the OSM database"? cheers Richard [1] I am diplomatically ignoring the fact that there is no proof that US Federal data is public domain _outside_ the States ;) 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 ___ 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 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
Well one solution is very simple: just contribute stuff that you mapped yourself, and hey presto, 99.9% of all problems vanish (including any issues with agreeing to the CTs). Simon Am 24.08.2011 19:34, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen: Simon said: >Distributing data just >because somebody on the web said it was PD has a high likelihood of being >considered negligent. Then distributing data because someone on the web has stated that is was CT/ODBL compliant is even negligent. If you do not provide a set of tools or rules that a user can handle to tests for license compatibility, you cannot even keep him responsible for what he clicked ages ago, probably without profound reading, let alone understanding. And as in the OSM case of uploading distributed elements of data that are often geographically unrelated by place space or source (and often of a mixed character) stating any license compatibility will be a risky business for an individual mapper. And since OSM has a defined license contract with its mappers, it is much easier for a third party too to hold OSMF liable for any breaches now instead of the individual that made a mistake. And then I do not even consider that a clicked box in combination with a username and email as an ID does not invariably lead to one person to be kept responsible. Hope I made my point clear. not easy to explain. Gert *Van:*Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] *Verzonden:* woensdag 24 augustus 2011 17:57 *Aan:* legal-talk@openstreetmap.org *Onderwerp:* Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD But probably the buck would stop with the OSMF. Distributing data just because somebody on the web said it was PD has a high likelihood of being considered negligent. Simon Am 24.08.2011 17:45, schrieb yar...@gmail.com: <mailto:yar...@gmail.com:> If you lie about your ability to PD data, you are liable for the effects. Whatever you do or don't sign. - Rob. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" <mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl> wrote: Signing (clicking) the CT explicitly transfers the liability of the suitability to the contributor, where declaring PD does not. The Board wants us to sign a contract with them. It's not about data but about compliance. Regards, Gert Gremmen, -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] Verzonden: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:53 PM Aan:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org <mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org> Onderwerp: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df). > Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their > contributions are public domain. > > There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be > maintained in the current OSM database even after a switch to > ODbL. > > A very small number of contributors have declined the new > contributor terms and asserted that the their contributions are in > the public domain. This does not mean that the collective data in > the OSM database is public domain. Their 'PD' position contradicts > the explicit decline. Therefore the LWG takes the position that > their contributions cannot be published under ODbL without > acceptance of the contribut[or terms]. (I think the two contributors affected by this are Tim Sheerman-Chase and Florian Lohoff, but there may be others.) I'm a little puzzled by this. "Asserting that one's contributions are in the public domain" is saying, in the words of the disclaimer used on Wikipedia and on the OSM wiki, "I grant anyone the right to use my contributions for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law". Therefore I don't see any reason why the data cannot be included in OSM. The contributor has given a grant of all rights - not just copyright, but any database right or indeed other right that might exist. There is no difference between (say) TimSC's PD data and the TIGER PD data, but we're not requiring the US Census Bureau to sign the terms.[1] The minute says "Their 'PD' position contradicts the explicit decline", which seems to me to be true legally but not "politically". There are people who do not wish to enter into a formal agreement with OSMF, and though I think they're mistaken, they doubtless have their own reasons. What am I missing? What exactly is meant by "the collective data in the OSM database"? cheers Richard [1] I am diplomatically ignoring the fact that there is no proof that US Federal data is publi
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
Simon said: >Distributing data just >because somebody on the web said it was PD has a high likelihood of being >considered negligent. Then distributing data because someone on the web has stated that is was CT/ODBL compliant is even negligent. If you do not provide a set of tools or rules that a user can handle to tests for license compatibility, you cannot even keep him responsible for what he clicked ages ago, probably without profound reading, let alone understanding. And as in the OSM case of uploading distributed elements of data that are often geographically unrelated by place space or source (and often of a mixed character) stating any license compatibility will be a risky business for an individual mapper. And since OSM has a defined license contract with its mappers, it is much easier for a third party too to hold OSMF liable for any breaches now instead of the individual that made a mistake. And then I do not even consider that a clicked box in combination with a username and email as an ID does not invariably lead to one person to be kept responsible. Hope I made my point clear. not easy to explain. Gert Van: Simon Poole [mailto:si...@poole.ch] Verzonden: woensdag 24 augustus 2011 17:57 Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD But probably the buck would stop with the OSMF. Distributing data just because somebody on the web said it was PD has a high likelihood of being considered negligent. Simon Am 24.08.2011 17:45, schrieb yar...@gmail.com: If you lie about your ability to PD data, you are liable for the effects. Whatever you do or don't sign. - Rob. -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. "ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen" <mailto:g.grem...@cetest.nl> wrote: Signing (clicking) the CT explicitly transfers the liability of the suitability to the contributor, where declaring PD does not. The Board wants us to sign a contract with them. It's not about data but about compliance. Regards, Gert Gremmen, -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] Verzonden: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:53 PM Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df). > Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their > contributions are public domain. > > There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be > maintained in the current OSM database even after a switch to > ODbL. > > A very small number of contributors have declined the new > contributor terms and asserted that the their contributions are in > the public domain. This does not mean that the collective data in > the OSM database is public domain. Their 'PD' position contradicts > the explicit decline. Therefore the LWG takes the position that > their contributions cannot be published under ODbL without > acceptance of the contribut[or terms]. (I think the two contributors affected by this are Tim Sheerman-Chase and Florian Lohoff, but there may be others.) I'm a little puzzled by this. "Asserting that one's contributions are in the public domain" is saying, in the words of the disclaimer used on Wikipedia and on the OSM wiki, "I grant anyone the right to use my contributions for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law". Therefore I don't see any reason why the data cannot be included in OSM. The contributor has given a grant of all rights - not just copyright, but any database right or indeed other right that might exist. There is no difference between (say) TimSC's PD data and the TIGER PD data, but we're not requiring the US Census Bureau to sign the terms.[1] The minute says "Their 'PD' position contradicts the explicit decline", which seems to me to be true legally but not "politically". There are people who do not wish to enter into a formal agreement with OSMF, and though I think they're mistaken, they doubtless have their own reasons. What am I missing? What exactly is meant by "the collective data in the OSM database"? cheers Richard [1] I am diplomatically ignoring the fact that there is no proof that US Federal data is public domain _outside_ the States ;) 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.o
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
Am 24.08.2011 16:09, schrieb Frederik Ramm: ... One of the PD-but-not-CT-people said something like "I don't want to give any kind of explicit assurance/permission to OSMF". I.e. they don't want a contract with OSMF. But I think that could be remedied by offering them a differently worded declaration to "sign", one that would subsume the CTs but not be specific to OSMF. Such a document might well be more complex than the CTs but simplicity or complexity does not seem to be the issue. Well, the issue seems to be more that they simply can't get themselves to agree to the same terms as the rest of the plebs. I have a non-diplomatic response, that has to with lakes and jumping, that I'll refrain from giving now. As I pointed out the last time this was discussed, going down the path of a separate agreement raises tons of issues, for example wrt voting rights (should parties to such an agreement get them or not). I don't believe that, except if the interested contributors get to a consensus among themselves and actually produce such a document, we will have agreement on it within a useful time frame (aka in less than twelve months). Simon ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: > There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August > (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df). > >> Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their >> contributions are public domain. >> >> There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be >> maintained in the current OSM database even after a switch to >> ODbL. >> >> A very small number of contributors have declined the new >> contributor terms and asserted that the their contributions are in >> the public domain. This does not mean that the collective data in >> the OSM database is public domain. Their 'PD' position contradicts >> the explicit decline. Therefore the LWG takes the position that >> their contributions cannot be published under ODbL without >> acceptance of the contribut[or terms]. > > (I think the two contributors affected by this are Tim Sheerman-Chase and > Florian Lohoff, but there may be others.) > > I'm a little puzzled by this. "Asserting that one's contributions are in > the public domain" is saying, in the words of the disclaimer used on > Wikipedia and on the OSM wiki, "I grant anyone the right to use my > contributions for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such > conditions are required by law". > > Therefore I don't see any reason why the data cannot be included in OSM. > The contributor has given a grant of all rights - not just copyright, but > any database right or indeed other right that might exist. There is no > difference between (say) TimSC's PD data and the TIGER PD data, but we're > not requiring the US Census Bureau to sign the terms.[1] > > The minute says "Their 'PD' position contradicts the explicit decline", > which seems to me to be true legally but not "politically". There are > people who do not wish to enter into a formal agreement with OSMF, and > though I think they're mistaken, they doubtless have their own reasons. When considering usernames that have 1) made a PD assertion and 2) explicitly declined CT/ODbL, there is a conflict in their expressed intent. The explicit accept / decline mechanism of the CT/ODbL is the mechanism provided and used by the vast majority of the OSM community. To accept their ad-hoc PD declaration may require a substantial investment of resources to 1) determine if their jurisdiction permits such a PD declaration, 2) decide if that PD declaration is likely to over-ride their explicit decline via the community-accepted mechanism. > > What am I missing? What exactly is meant by "the collective data in the > OSM database"? OSMF have permission to publish data as CC-By-SA, and in future from most contributors as ODbL. OSMF have no permission to publish data as PD at this time. TIGER PD data came from PD TIGER data sources. If the usernames in question have a PD source for the data that they assert is PD, we might use that as a source for OSM. If that data is only in OSM, it isn't PD; it is CC-By-SA. It can be promoted to ODbL by way of accepting CT/ODbL. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
Hi, On 08/24/11 16:03, Simon Poole wrote: I think I've said this before, but any way you look at it, there is a big difference between TimSC and the US Census Bureau. I just can't see how we could use a mappers data without some kind of assurance that the mapper actually has the rights necessary to make their contributions PD or a similar equivalent. Since such an agreement is unlikely to be much simpler than the CTs, it just doesn't make sense to go and produce yet another agreement for these special cases. One of the PD-but-not-CT-people said something like "I don't want to give any kind of explicit assurance/permission to OSMF". I.e. they don't want a contract with OSMF. But I think that could be remedied by offering them a differently worded declaration to "sign", one that would subsume the CTs but not be specific to OSMF. Such a document might well be more complex than the CTs but simplicity or complexity does not seem to be the issue. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
Signing (clicking) the CT explicitly transfers the liability of the suitability to the contributor, where declaring PD does not. The Board wants us to sign a contract with them. It's not about data but about compliance. Regards, Gert Gremmen, -Oorspronkelijk bericht- Van: Richard Fairhurst [mailto:rich...@systemed.net] Verzonden: Wednesday, August 24, 2011 3:53 PM Aan: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org Onderwerp: [OSM-legal-talk] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df). > Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their > contributions are public domain. > > There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be > maintained in the current OSM database even after a switch to > ODbL. > > A very small number of contributors have declined the new > contributor terms and asserted that the their contributions are in > the public domain. This does not mean that the collective data in > the OSM database is public domain. Their 'PD' position contradicts > the explicit decline. Therefore the LWG takes the position that > their contributions cannot be published under ODbL without > acceptance of the contribut[or terms]. (I think the two contributors affected by this are Tim Sheerman-Chase and Florian Lohoff, but there may be others.) I'm a little puzzled by this. "Asserting that one's contributions are in the public domain" is saying, in the words of the disclaimer used on Wikipedia and on the OSM wiki, "I grant anyone the right to use my contributions for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law". Therefore I don't see any reason why the data cannot be included in OSM. The contributor has given a grant of all rights - not just copyright, but any database right or indeed other right that might exist. There is no difference between (say) TimSC's PD data and the TIGER PD data, but we're not requiring the US Census Bureau to sign the terms.[1] The minute says "Their 'PD' position contradicts the explicit decline", which seems to me to be true legally but not "politically". There are people who do not wish to enter into a formal agreement with OSMF, and though I think they're mistaken, they doubtless have their own reasons. What am I missing? What exactly is meant by "the collective data in the OSM database"? cheers Richard [1] I am diplomatically ignoring the fact that there is no proof that US Federal data is public domain _outside_ the States ;) ___ 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] Refusing CT but declaring contributions as PD
I think I've said this before, but any way you look at it, there is a big difference between TimSC and the US Census Bureau. I just can't see how we could use a mappers data without some kind of assurance that the mapper actually has the rights necessary to make their contributions PD or a similar equivalent. Since such an agreement is unlikely to be much simpler than the CTs, it just doesn't make sense to go and produce yet another agreement for these special cases. In the case of the US Census Bureau there is no question about the status of their data (well at least in the US of A :-)). So much said, the wording in the LWG minutes is really not the clearest. Simon Am 24.08.2011 15:52, schrieb Richard Fairhurst: There's a curious statement in the LWG minutes for 2nd August (https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_1252tt382df). Folks who have declined the new contributor terms but said their contributions are public domain. There has been a suggestion that such contributions should be maintained in the current OSM database even after a switch to ODbL. A very small number of contributors have declined the new contributor terms and asserted that the their contributions are in the public domain. This does not mean that the collective data in the OSM database is public domain. Their 'PD' position contradicts the explicit decline. Therefore the LWG takes the position that their contributions cannot be published under ODbL without acceptance of the contribut[or terms]. (I think the two contributors affected by this are Tim Sheerman-Chase and Florian Lohoff, but there may be others.) I'm a little puzzled by this. "Asserting that one's contributions are in the public domain" is saying, in the words of the disclaimer used on Wikipedia and on the OSM wiki, "I grant anyone the right to use my contributions for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law". Therefore I don't see any reason why the data cannot be included in OSM. The contributor has given a grant of all rights - not just copyright, but any database right or indeed other right that might exist. There is no difference between (say) TimSC's PD data and the TIGER PD data, but we're not requiring the US Census Bureau to sign the terms.[1] The minute says "Their 'PD' position contradicts the explicit decline", which seems to me to be true legally but not "politically". There are people who do not wish to enter into a formal agreement with OSMF, and though I think they're mistaken, they doubtless have their own reasons. What am I missing? What exactly is meant by "the collective data in the OSM database"? cheers Richard [1] I am diplomatically ignoring the fact that there is no proof that US Federal data is public domain _outside_ the States ;) ___ 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
