Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions on the Contributors Term
On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Hi Nakor, Here is a quick initial answer. I'll do a bit more research and add to a FAQ and respond further, they sound like questions other folks will want to ask. At 22:57 10/08/2010, Nakor wrote: Hello, 2) Where does PD data (mainly TIGER, NHS, NPS, NAIP imagery, USGS imagery) fall with regards to contributor terms, specifically You have **explicit** permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the licence below?' [ ... ] 3) same as 2) for tracing from Toporama WMS (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Toporama_WMS) Please would one of our Canadian bretheren add an answer to this directly on the wiki page? Richard?! OSM use of Toporama is granted explicitly. See: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2010-August/003235.html ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions on the Contributors Term
OSM use of Toporama is granted explicitly. See: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2010-August/003235.html Richard, This is very good news. Thanks! N. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions on the Contributors Term
On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:07 PM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote: On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 3:01 AM, Michael Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz wrote: Hi Nakor, Here is a quick initial answer. I'll do a bit more research and add to a FAQ and respond further, they sound like questions other folks will want to ask. At 22:57 10/08/2010, Nakor wrote: Hello, 2) Where does PD data (mainly TIGER, NHS, NPS, NAIP imagery, USGS imagery) fall with regards to contributor terms, specifically You have **explicit** permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the licence below?' [ ... ] 3) same as 2) for tracing from Toporama WMS (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Toporama_WMS) Please would one of our Canadian bretheren add an answer to this directly on the wiki page? Richard?! OSM use of Toporama is granted explicitly. See: http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-ca/2010-August/003235.html Some people might think this is nitpicking, but I don't think that gives me the right to grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright. For a start OSMF is not the same as OSM. Secondly Toporama only grants the right for derivation and / or inclusion in which doesn't quite sound the same as a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright. When did we start being so relaxed about the importance of getting this kind of thing right? Richard, would it be possible for you to ask Toporama for a properly drafted permission? ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions on the Contributors Term
At 12:02 PM 11/08/2010, David Groom wrote: 2) Where does PD data (mainly TIGER, NHS, NPS, NAIP imagery, USGS imagery) fall with regards to contributor terms, specifically You have **explicit** permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the licence below?' The general answer is that PD licenses, and specifically the terms under which US government releases data, allow any use. That gives you explicit permission to submit the data. Not in my opinion it doesn't. In my opinion it gives you **permission**, or it gives you **implicit** permission, but it does not give you **explicit** permission I raised this point on this list on 20 July 2010 and got no answer, so last week I emailed the Licence Working Group to raise this point with them. David David, Sorry if I have not answered you, it must have been someone else with the same question. Please would someone else from the License Working Group verify my memory as it is an important point: We made the same question as you to our legal counsel when we reviewed his initial draft and asked if we could change/remove it, particularly as, like you, we felt it confusing. Our understanding was that it would be a very bad idea. The realm of implicit permission being unclear and falling into the realm of Well, you did not say I couldn't kill you. As I recall, the rationale is: If a license allows anyone any use, that is explicit permission -- Anyone is a set including You -- You have explicit permission. I also have to draft a question on OS StreetView to our legal counsel, and will be happy to include this for double verification. Mike ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions on the Contributors Term
- Original Message - From: Mike Collinson m...@ayeltd.biz To: Licensing and other legal discussions. legal-talk@openstreetmap.org; David Groom revi...@pacific-rim.net Cc: OSMF License Working Group le...@osmfoundation.org Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2010 2:36 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Questions on the Contributors Term At 12:02 PM 11/08/2010, David Groom wrote: 2) Where does PD data (mainly TIGER, NHS, NPS, NAIP imagery, USGS imagery) fall with regards to contributor terms, specifically You have **explicit** permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the licence below?' The general answer is that PD licenses, and specifically the terms under which US government releases data, allow any use. That gives you explicit permission to submit the data. Not in my opinion it doesn't. In my opinion it gives you **permission**, or it gives you **implicit** permission, but it does not give you **explicit** permission I raised this point on this list on 20 July 2010 and got no answer, so last week I emailed the Licence Working Group to raise this point with them. David David, Sorry if I have not answered you, it must have been someone else with the same question. Please would someone else from the License Working Group verify my memory as it is an important point: We made the same question as you to our legal counsel when we reviewed his initial draft and asked if we could change/remove it, particularly as, like you, we felt it confusing. Our understanding was that it would be a very bad idea. The realm of implicit permission being unclear and falling into the realm of Well, you did not say I couldn't kill you. As I recall, the rationale is: If a license allows anyone any use, that is explicit permission -- Anyone is a set including You -- You have explicit permission. I also have to draft a question on OS StreetView to our legal counsel, and will be happy to include this for double verification. Mike Mike Thank you for your reply. The CT terms state You represent and warrant that You have explicit permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the license below. To my mind explicit permission would require both that : a) the permission was explicitly given to me; b) that the permission given explicitly mentioned the ability to submit the Contents [to OSM] and grant the license below. Given that the sort of instances I have been talking about, such as PD data, or data with general CC-BY-SA clauses do not cover points (a) or (b) above you may see why I have difficulty in thinking I can agree to the CT terms. If there is legal opinion on this it would be helpful if it were published so that it would help those like me who have concerns about our ability to agree to the CT as currently worded. David ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Questions on the Contributors Term
Hello, 1) What is the exact definition of copyrightable elements? Does it mean that the elements has a copyright or does it mean that the element could have a copyright? The reason I am asking is because the French version of paragraph 1. of the contributor terms seems more lazy to me than the English one. 2) Where does PD data (mainly TIGER, NHS, NPS, NAIP imagery, USGS imagery) fall with regards to contributor terms, specifically You have **explicit** permission from the rights holder to submit the Contents and grant the licence below? 3) same as 2) for tracing from Toporama WMS (http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Toporama_WMS) 4) same as 2) for tracing from Yahoo imagery Sorry if 2, 3, 4 have already been answered. In that case please direct me to a place where that would be clearly explained. Thanks in advance, N. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
