On 7 December 2010 22:17, Francis Davey <fjm...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 7 December 2010 21:01, andrzej zaborowski <balr...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Can you explain what "You do not need to guarantee that [contributed >> data is compatible with our license]" means? Since OSMF is not bound >> to remove such conflicting data is there any possibility a user can >> submit such data without automatically being in violation of the third >> party's rights? > > Well, if a contributor contributes data over which there is some IP > right, then that may constitute a form of secondary infringement by > the contributor. There's no way to avoid this. Putting a contractual > provision requiring the contributor to warrant compliance, won't stop > them being liable if they make a mistake (although it might make them > more careful). > > I doubt that imposing a duty on OSMF to remove any data which they > discover to be unlawful would help (there's still a high chance of > some form of secondary infringement). Imposing a duty to remove any > data which would be unlawful for OSMF to distribute whether OSMF knows > or not (in other words transferring the warranty to OSMF) would impose > an serious burden on OSMF to guard contributors from their own > mistakes. It could be done, but it would require serious thought. > > So, I think your objection has substance, but it is directed at the wrong > thing.
Thanks for the explanation. Would you agree that the sentence "You do not need to guarantee that is is, but [...]" is not having any effect then? It might have an effect of discouraging or encouraging some action (but as I see it, it's encouraging the wrong thing). I guess that it might have an effect where contributing incompatible data in the proposed wording doesn't terminate the contract between contributor and OSMF, while without that sentence the OSMF could tell a contributor "our contract wasn't valid because you had submitted data that was incompatibly licensed on this and that day". > >> >> (I have the same doubt about not guaranteeing compatibility with >> future OSM licenses) > > Well, that's an impossibility (its hard enough to check compatibility > with existing licenses). If OSMF agrees to make reasonable efforts to > remove offending data, that should be enough to absolve any > contributor of secondary liability. > > "We want to respect the intellectual property rights of others" may be > enough to do the trick. I think my doubt was the following: if a contributor uploads contents of a third party database that is ODbL 1.0 licensed, to OSM; OSM then changes its license and keeps distributing the third party contents, then if the contributor is not liable for the damage that the third party may suffer, who may be liable? Cheers _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
