Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Hi, Russ Nelson wrote: On Jul 3, 2009, at 7:20 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: It's a public site, no passwords, no sign up required to read it, so it's for the public to read. What if somebody posts hate speech (for the USAmericans)? What if somebody adds Nazi party mapping parties to the calendar (for the Germans)? What if somebody invites women and men to a mapping party in Saudi Arabia? The question isn't what legal text do we need? but is instead What legal risks do we expect the OSMF to have to defend itself against? And what exactly would be the risks of the above? If we are alerted to a hate speech etc., we'll remove it (and I believe no matter what our Ts and Cs say, we will have to remove it). So what risk would any Ts and Cs mitigate and how? What if, god forbid, someone organises a mapping party in China, we would probably have to ban that via our Ts and Cs, wouldn't we? Because mapping is illegal there? and if we then decide that some risks are too large to accept, What legal text do we need to ameliorate that risk? The OSMF has no a priori control over what gets posted via email to OSM editors ...and that's why no sane court would assume it has responsiblity. At least here in Germany if you operate a bulletin board or something, you are expected to remove illegal content when you find it or are alerted to it, but nobody will be held responsible for stuff their users post without their knowledge (unless you are proved to operate a site that explicitly invites e.g. Nazi contributions and then play innocent). Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Francis Davey schrieb: No (though you will often see small print disclaimers on them). The idea of restricting access to age 13+ strikes me as odd in the extreme. When I get some time I'll do some research into what is going on in the US that makes them do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act Though apparently there is some sort of exception for non-profits. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Hi, Ulf Möller wrote: No (though you will often see small print disclaimers on them). The idea of restricting access to age 13+ strikes me as odd in the extreme. When I get some time I'll do some research into what is going on in the US that makes them do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act Should we perhaps have two sets of Terms and Condition - one that applies if the user is in the USA, and the other if he isn't? One with 200 lines of text, the other with 10? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 2:11 PM, Frederik Rammfrede...@remote.org wrote: Hi, Ulf Möller wrote: No (though you will often see small print disclaimers on them). The idea of restricting access to age 13+ strikes me as odd in the extreme. When I get some time I'll do some research into what is going on in the US that makes them do this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children%27s_Online_Privacy_Protection_Act Should we perhaps have two sets of Terms and Condition - one that applies if the user is in the USA, and the other if he isn't? One with 200 lines of text, the other with 10? i'll suggest that to our lawyer, but this might mean having more than two sets - apparently Canada and Australia have their own versions of COPPA. and i guess the EU has something similar. it may end requiring us to to have a different set of TsCs for each jurisdiction. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/7/4 Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com: i'll suggest that to our lawyer, but this might mean having more than two sets - apparently Canada and Australia have their own versions of COPPA. and i guess the EU has something similar. it may end requiring us to to have a different set of TsCs for each jurisdiction. From having a read through COPPA it seems that it would not apply to someone merely looking at or using the map - unless personal information is somehow harvested in the process which seems unlikely - but it might apply to a situation where children signed up. This illustrates a wider point: if people are going through a sign-up process then at that stage its entirely reasonable to ask them to agree to a set of terms and conditions (which can be as simple as don't be an idiot). Many sites do that and do that in a lightweight and inoffensive way. After all if you want to join in you should probably told what the local culture is like. On the other hand terms and conditions for use of the *site* (as opposed to signing up for an account) would not (as far as a 1 minute skim read suggests) require any compliance with COPPA. For my part I cannot see any obvious need for a whole-site-applies-to-everyone-even-those-without-accounts terms and conditions. But - and I boringly restate this point because I'm not sure its been necessarily understood - it depends what you are trying to do. There's no legal right or wrong it all depends on what you want to do. My guess is that you don't need TC's of the kind outlined but I could be wrong. Though I do draft and litigate contracts for a living I only do so in England and Wales. I have a nodding acquaintance with some relevant law in other jurisdictions, but if you are particularly concerned about getting things right world-wide you might want a team effort 8-). -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Case_law http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Statute_law Thanks, I've had a look at that. It seems to agree with the usual layman's view of the subject: that facts are not copyrightable, though the expression of them may be; and that many countries recognize a database right. Bear in mind also that Creative Commons themselves have said several times that CC-BY-SA is not suitable for OSM. For example, In the United States, data will be protected by copyright only if they express creativity. Some databases will satisfy this condition, such as a database containing poetry or a wiki containing prose. Many databases, however, contain factual information that may have taken a great deal of effort to gather, such as the results of a series of complicated and creative experiments. Nonetheless, that information is not protected by copyright and cannot be licensed under the terms of a Creative Commons license. Is anyone seriously suggesting that because factual information is not covered by copyright, then in countries where no database right is recognized, map data can be copied with impunity? If so, then it will be okay to start copying data from pre-1990s Ordnance Survey maps? I know this point has been raised many times, and the discussion tends to go in circles, but I think it has never been satisfactorily answered. Either copyright applies to map data or it doesn't; and if it doesn't, then why are we wasting time walking round with GPS devices? If it is the settled view of the OSM project, based on legal advice, that copyright plus CC-BY-SA does not protect the Openstreetmap geodata from being copied and incorporated into other works, can an official statement be made to this effect? It would save a lot of effort for people like People's Map or Google, who would love to start copying the OSM data if it weren't for the pesky share-alike restrictions. But if you can't summon the energy to read all that, and I wouldn't blame you, do at least read Charlotte Waelde's paper and the key US cases (Rural vs Feist, Mason vs Montgomery). I'm reading the Montgomery one now. Which do you mean by Waelde's paper? For what it's worth, my interpretation at present is that a simple OSM map of a housing estate, such as http://osm.org/go/euwtbOAo-- , is not at all copyrightable in the US (the most liberal jurisdiction). It's a simple collection of facts - street names and geometries - arranged in an uncreative fashion, and Rural vs Feist tells us that this doesn't merit copyright. Therefore CC-BY-SA will not protect it. Interesting. Do you mean only the map, or the underlying data too? Something more intensively mapped, such as http://osm.org/go/eutDzIjd-- , may perhaps attract copyright protection for the database structure - which, in OSM, is principally the tagging system. It could go either way for the database contents, which is still pretty uncreative _given_ that structure, but could be argued to involve careful assessment of sources and so on (Mason vs Montgomery). From my experience of doing mapping, it seems there is a lot of creativity and freedom, with many distinct ways to express the same physical fact. But you might be right, perhaps in the USA map data can be freely copied. In which case the OSM project has already achieved its aim (of free map data) kind of by default, and all that remains is to view some areas in Google Maps and start copying in the streets and other features. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Jul 3, 2009, at 7:20 AM, Elizabeth Dodd wrote: It's a public site, no passwords, no sign up required to read it, so it's for the public to read. What if somebody posts hate speech (for the USAmericans)? What if somebody adds Nazi party mapping parties to the calendar (for the Germans)? What if somebody invites women and men to a mapping party in Saudi Arabia? The question isn't what legal text do we need? but is instead What legal risks do we expect the OSMF to have to defend itself against? and if we then decide that some risks are too large to accept, What legal text do we need to ameliorate that risk? The OSMF has no a priori control over what gets posted via email to OSM editors, nor what gets posted to the Wiki. Should it have responsibility for things over which it chooses not to control? Answering these questions requires help from a lawyer. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/7/3 Russ Nelson r...@cloudmade.com: Indeed. Consider what you would say if a lawyer looked at a program and said Why do we need all this codese? Speaking as a lawyer - albeit one who hasn't been on this list nearly long enough to have an opinion, I'm mostly just trying to learn where OSM are coming from - my reaction to the terms of use is yuk. I'm not sure this it the place to discuss it and whether my views are at all interesting, but I do draft (and more often litigate) contracts like this. Main problem (as I see it) is that its drafted from a US point of view, but purports to be governed by English law. I'm not quite sure how that will work out in practice or what the goal is. Is it clear that OSM is only used in the US and England? If not, why is (only) US law being mentioned when many different legal systems will come into play? If English law is the governing law, then that, surely is the one to go with, subject to having an eye to all other relevant jurisdictions. I work a lot with clients who want to be reasonably legal safe but want contracts to be short and simple and are prepared to take the risk that I haven't put in an extra 30 pages of boilerplate to cover an obscure risk, so that kind of drafting is entirely possible. But its a matter entirely for the client. I'd be happy to write/rewrite this kind of thing for you or give my input, but, as I said, I'm an OSM novice and really don't know what you are after. From an English law point of view, all caps paragraphs should be removed of course 8-). There's a bunch of stuff I'd rewrite, but its not up to me. All the best. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes: The licence should not try to impose additional restrictions on people beyond their own country's copyright law (and other applicable laws such as database right). In which case OSM becomes public domain. Are you saying that the OSM data, currently distributable under the CC-BY-SA licence, is in the public domain now? What about, for example, Ordnance Survey maps from before the database right was introduced, and where the buyer has not agreed to any contract or EULA? I'm repeating myself, I'm afraid, but you can take two approaches with data. You can say it's all PD. Or you can attempt to arm yourself to the teeth by deploying whatever tools are available in your jurisdiction: copyright, database right and contract. There is no middle ground. A weaker approach (say, a copyright-only licence like CC-BY-SA) won't be applicable in all countries, therefore in some places our data will be freely copiable. This is exactly my point. Copyright law is a trade-off giving limited exclusion rights to copyright holders in order to benefit the public. It is not absolute, so for example, copyrights expire after a certain time period. The scope of copyright in a particular country is decided by that country's legislature. If a certain country decides that maps are freely copyable, then that is a decision for their parliament to take and be answerable to their own voters. I think it is unethical to try to override that, even if software companies do it. (This is certainly an example where what is done in the world of software is not appropriate for free data.) And if in some places our data is freely copyable, so what? It does no harm to anyone outside those countries. Popeye is in the public domain in Europe but that does not mean you can freely import Popeye comics from Europe to the US. I think that 'arming yourself' with all the legal weapons possible is quite the wrong metaphor. The project is not about suing wrongdoers but about making free map data as widely available as possible. The settled will [1] of the OSM community is that we want a share-alike licence, Which we have. If you believe that CC-BY-SA is not a share-alike licence, or that somehow it does not work when applied to map data, then let's see the evidence. That isn't the case for factual data. If you don't impose additional restrictions over and above statute law, then there will be some countries in which your data is unprotected, and it will leak out from there. Are you really saying it is possible to launder the OSM data by taking it to Bogoland, where is is 'unprotected', and then copying it and sending it back to Europe, the US or other developed country? If so then why don't you just do that in order to accomplish the relicensing? I may be exaggerating above but I just don't see what the problem is. It seems like legalistic speculation and FUD rather than a real scenario. If anyone can point to a case where this has already happened then I'll believe it - and start investigating how existing map data can be subjected to the same treatment... Nonetheless if the OSM community wants a share-alike license, it has to use this sort of language. Everyone who has contributed to OSM so far has done so under CC-BY-SA. I don't see where these large numbers of people are coming from who are unhappy with the existing share-alike terms and pushing for something more onerous. I kind of think it should be compulsory for anyone posting to legal-talk to demonstrate that they have read, and understood, Rural vs Feist and Mason vs Montgomery. I will read those (anyone got a link?). -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes: the personal use only stuff comes into the terms of service. you don't need to agree - it's simply a statement by OSMF that the site is intended for personal use and that any non-personal use of the site may result in service being withdrawn. Hmm. I guess not being a lawyer I misunderstood. But it hardly seems necessary to say such a thing - it's not as if OSMF has agreed to provide uninterrupted service in the first place, or, indeed, that anyone using the site for personal use is guaranteed that the site will work. For us non-lawyers, it would clarify things to have a paragraph at the top saying 'these terms of service are not something you need to agree to, they are simply a statement by the OSMF of how we will try to run our website' would solve the problem. to make this very, very clear: we're not proposing the privacy policy and terms of service because we're evil, or we're excited by long and boring legal documents or even that we're anticipating a clear threat. we're doing it **because our lawyer is recommending it**. I do think that lawyers can get a bit out of control if you don't keep them on a short leash, but do whatever you have to, I guess. Just make sure that site visitors aren't caught in the crossfire, and do not end up having to agree (explicitly or implicitly) to waive some of their rights. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Ulf Möller wrote: It doesn't. It's just that during a review of the proposed license, a lawyer pointed out that it is good practice to have terms of use for the website. That recommendation would still stand if we chose not to change the license. I can't really comprehend how terms and conditions for use of a website mean anything in the big real world. I'm over 50 years old, have university degrees and post graduate qualifications; i teach undergraduates and postgraduates in my field. However, I'm not stuck in academic clouds and putting terms and conditions on a website is bizarre. I go to a website, i read, i look at pictures. I know quite well that the contents are either copy left or copyright and i should check before i copy anything. Terms and conditions for use of a website - do we put terms and conditions on advertising posters governing who can read them? It's a public site, no passwords, no sign up required to read it, so it's for the public to read. Put the lawyer back in the cage. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Fri, 3 Jul 2009, Francis Davey wrote: Put the lawyer back in the cage. Be nice 8-). This isn't (as far as I can see) about lawyers being unreasonable. I just get the impression that some people have had so much to do with lawyers while trying to get the database licence organised that they have lost sight of reality. Lawyers advise. Philosophers think. Don't mix the roles ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: Many websites have terms and conditions (eg amazon and tesco) and they do so because using those sites goes beyond just having a browse but involves rather more interaction (including the handing over of money). In the case of OSM things don't go that far (importantly no money changes hands) but users of the site can add content to it. Yes, which is why a contributor agreement is needed - but that does not mean you need a set of terms and conditions just to *read* the site. That may be true, but if I want to attach a complex contractual obligation on anyone who uses the data (which is what the new open data licence will do) then I need to make sure that you know you are agreeing to it. I think if it's necessary to undertake a complex contractual obligation just to look at some map data, then it is no longer free map data. But if we assume that the goal of OSM is now 'provide legally encumbered map data under EULA' for the sake of this discussion... There's a difference between that and a pure copyright licence since you don't have a right to use copyrighted material without a licence (or some exception holding) so I didn't know the terms of the licence won't help someone who wants to steal the data, whereas if you want someone to be bound by a contract you have to bring its terms to their attention. Yes, and they have to agree to it (just seeing it on a web page is not enough), and although IANAL, I think there must be some consideration, for example a monetary payment. It's not clear that putting up an intimidating screenful of legal boilerplate accomplishes anything. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/7/3 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com: Yes, which is why a contributor agreement is needed - but that does not mean you need a set of terms and conditions just to *read* the site. Yes and as is I hope clear from what I have written (although your use of the word but suggests possibly not) I do not believe you do. I am trying (though unsuccessfully) to make helpful remarks, but they don't seem to be being helpful. I think if it's necessary to undertake a complex contractual obligation just to look at some map data, then it is no longer free map data. But if we assume That is, as I understand it, what the new data licence does attempt to achieve - but I could have misunderstood this. that the goal of OSM is now 'provide legally encumbered map data under EULA' for the sake of this discussion... There's a difference between that and a pure copyright licence since you don't have a right to use copyrighted material without a licence (or some exception holding) so I didn't know the terms of the licence won't help someone who wants to steal the data, whereas if you want someone to be bound by a contract you have to bring its terms to their attention. Yes, and they have to agree to it (just seeing it on a web page is not enough), Sure, its a necessary but not sufficient condition. and although IANAL, I think there must be some consideration, for example a monetary payment. It's not clear that putting up an intimidating screenful There has to be consideration, but if I say to you - if you want to use my data you must agree to abide by these contractual terms - then there will be consideration: you get the use of the data, and I get whatever I get out of the terms and conditions (eg you agreement to do or not to do certain things). Contracts very rarely fail for want of consideration. NB: this is all in English law terms, other systems of contract law work differently. of legal boilerplate accomplishes anything. Oh yes it does: it can annoy and intimidate people. It is what some people want to do. Not, I suspect, what OSM wants to do which is why (amongst other things) you shouldn't use ALL CAPS paragraphs unless you want people to feel shouted at. What I think you mean is that OSM shouldn't use the suggested terms of use (I assume that's the screenful of legal boilerplate), I probably agree (that's why I said yuk earlier in the discussion) but the starting point is not the terms of use, its what are you trying to do with terms of use? What risks are you trying to avoid and/or what advantages are you hoping to achieve? Once you have that thought through, then its pointful to look at whether you need any form of legal wording on your site and, if so, what it should be. There's a lot more to such things than merely trying to bind visitors to a contract. For example if you process personal data then as a matter of good practice you should have a clear explanation of what you are going to do with it (and as a matter of law in the EU you should inform the data subjects you are doing so). I suspect OSM does need such a thing. A statement can amount to a warning or disclaimer that does not create contractual relations but puts the recipient on sufficient notice to be aware that there are dangers or risks in using a site in a certain way and so as to limit the site owner's liability - I cannot see any need for such a thing with OSM. Anyway, the tone of responses seems to be that lawyers aren't really welcome here, so I'll shut up again. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: Yes, which is why a contributor agreement is needed - but that does not mean you need a set of terms and conditions just to *read* the site. Yes and as is I hope clear from what I have written (although your use of the word but suggests possibly not) I do not believe you do. Cool, so we agree on this point. Sorry, I don't mean to flame, I misread the position you were taking. There has to be consideration, but if I say to you - if you want to use my data you must agree to abide by these contractual terms - then there will be consideration: you get the use of the data, Hmm, I think I would argue that 'use of the data' is no consideration at all since I would have been able to use it anyway even without agreeing to the terms. For example if I publish a copy of the King James Bible with a 'contract' at the front, and the consideration for this contract is being allowed to copy the text, clearly this isn't a valid contract since the supposed consideration is really nothing at all - the text is in the public domain anyway. Therefore, granting permission on the data can only be a real consideration when there is some pre-existing law which means the other party needs such permission. That can be copyright law, database right or whatever. But in such cases, I would suggest, a contractual agreement is not necessary anyway. The copyright holder can sue me for making copies of a book whether or not I agreed to that when I bought it. If you don't have a licence for the necessary copyright or database rights then you are not allowed to distribute the data. There is no need for any contract. That is why I think that imposing an EULA or terms and conditions on people is unnecessary and ineffective. Either the database right exists or it doesn't; if it does then no contract is needed to enforce it; and if it doesn't then no contract has been agreed to because there is no consideration. As a lawyer does that make any sense, or is there some flaw in the above? Contracts very rarely fail for want of consideration. I wonder how much case law there is for 'contracts' which are some text displayed on a website, which has not had any scope for negotiation, and where the supposed consideration is granting you 'permission' for something you most likely had the right to do anyway... I doubt many such cases get to court. What I think you mean is that OSM shouldn't use the suggested terms of use (I assume that's the screenful of legal boilerplate), I probably agree (that's why I said yuk earlier in the discussion) but the starting point is not the terms of use, its what are you trying to do with terms of use? What risks are you trying to avoid and/or what advantages are you hoping to achieve? Yes, quite... so far 'good practice' has been the reason given, which doesn't really satisfy me and others that the benefits outweigh the costs. There's a lot more to such things than merely trying to bind visitors to a contract. For example if you process personal data then as a matter of good practice you should have a clear explanation of what you are going to do with it (and as a matter of law in the EU you should inform the data subjects you are doing so). I suspect OSM does need such a thing. Agreed. Anyway, the tone of responses seems to be that lawyers aren't really welcome here, so I'll shut up again. I am sorry about the tone of my previous message - I would like to hear more of your thoughts. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/7/3 Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com: Hmm, I think I would argue that 'use of the data' is no consideration at all since I would have been able to use it anyway even without agreeing to the terms. For example if I publish a copy of the King James Bible with a 'contract' at the front, and the consideration for this contract is being allowed to copy the text, clearly this isn't a valid contract since the supposed consideration is really nothing at all - the text is in the public domain anyway. Actually its Crown Copyright, but its unusual to see people bothering to obtain licences for it (though years ago we did make the effort to get a licence for an online version with no difficulty). So, there's an interesting point here which is that, you could, in principle, only sell to people who agreed not to copy it. They would be bound by that agreement, though their successors in title and third parties would not be. Having such a contract in the front of the book is more difficult because its harder to see how and why a purchaser of the book would be bound by it, unless they had had its terms drawn to their attention before purchase. This is the classic shrinkwrap question as someone else remarked. Legal publishers do this by the way. I have several books which have more or less ludicrous attempts to prevent my exercising my dominion over books I have bought. Just because you say it, doesn't make it binding, not because of want of consideration but because its not incorporated into the contract. The worst example I have ever seen was in a youth hostel in Pembrokeshire. In the kitchen was a notice which said that the YHA and its employees were not liable for any personal injury or death whether caused by their negligence or otherwise. There is so much wrong about such a statement I wouldn't know where to begin. Some website TC's try to do the same kind of thing. Therefore, granting permission on the data can only be a real consideration when there is some pre-existing law which means the other party needs such permission. That can be copyright law, database right or whatever. Sure. That's exactly right. But that assumes that the other contracting party has the data already. Having a contract that only permits you to download it from my site (or whatever) will have consideration because I don't have to let you do that (although there's a bunch of unresolved legal issues with the internet there too). But in such cases, I would suggest, a contractual agreement is not necessary anyway. The copyright holder can sue me for making copies of a book whether or not I agreed to that when I bought it. If you don't have a licence for the necessary copyright or database rights then you are not allowed to distribute the data. There is no need for any contract. Yes, that's right too. You don't need to obtain a contract to enforce rights you already have. That is why I think that imposing an EULA or terms and conditions on people is unnecessary and ineffective. Either the database right exists or it doesn't; if it does then no contract is needed to enforce it; and if it doesn't then no contract has been agreed to because there is no consideration. The idea behind the ODbL is, as I understand it, precisely to try to impose wider controls than would be possible by merely using intellectual property law. As a lawyer does that make any sense, or is there some flaw in the above? Apart from the small matter of consideration, no. Contracts very rarely fail for want of consideration. I wonder how much case law there is for 'contracts' which are some text displayed on a website, which has not had any scope for negotiation, and where the supposed consideration is granting you 'permission' for something you most likely had the right to do anyway... I doubt many such cases get to court. In respect of text on websites: In the UK I suspect there are more than you think, but they tend to happen at the rather knock-about stage in the county court and so they don't get reported and we don't hear about them. in the US there are *lots* and *lots* of them reported. But you are mixing up more than one issue. The lack of negotiation and standard form is a wholly different question. Such a contract (a contract of adhesion as my US colleagues would call it) may well bring in other legal considerations. Yes, quite... so far 'good practice' has been the reason given, which doesn't really satisfy me and others that the benefits outweigh the costs. OK. As I said, google maps don't have a TC imposed before use - what would be useful is to identify what exactly are the problems that one is seeking to deal with before going straight to code. Anyway, the tone of responses seems to be that lawyers aren't really welcome here, so I'll shut up again. I am sorry about the tone of my previous message - I would like to hear more of your thoughts. Thanks. -- Francis Davey
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Ed Avis wrote: Richard Fairhurst rich...@... writes: I kind of think it should be compulsory for anyone posting to legal-talk to demonstrate that they have read, and understood, Rural vs Feist and Mason vs Montgomery. I will read those (anyone got a link?). http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Case_law http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Statute_law Bear in mind also that Creative Commons themselves have said several times that CC-BY-SA is not suitable for OSM. For example, In the United States, data will be protected by copyright only if they express creativity. Some databases will satisfy this condition, such as a database containing poetry or a wiki containing prose. Many databases, however, contain factual information that may have taken a great deal of effort to gather, such as the results of a series of complicated and creative experiments. Nonetheless, that information is not protected by copyright and cannot be licensed under the terms of a Creative Commons license. And so on and so forth. That's from http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/databases . That page is actually deprecated because CC now recommend, effectively, that data should be public domain. Given that CC, to me, has always appeared to have an unspoken policy of favouring share-alike as the default recommendation, that's pretty telling. It's a huge subject, one with lots of shades of grey and very little black-and-white, and one that has been discussed very, very extensively here, on various blogs and elsewhere in the last few years. But if you can't summon the energy to read all that, and I wouldn't blame you, do at least read Charlotte Waelde's paper and the key US cases (Rural vs Feist, Mason vs Montgomery). For what it's worth, my interpretation at present is that a simple OSM map of a housing estate, such as http://osm.org/go/euwtbOAo-- , is not at all copyrightable in the US (the most liberal jurisdiction). It's a simple collection of facts - street names and geometries - arranged in an uncreative fashion, and Rural vs Feist tells us that this doesn't merit copyright. Therefore CC-BY-SA will not protect it. (And given that this level of detail is on a par with the major commercial mapping sites, it's definitely something of value.) Something more intensively mapped, such as http://osm.org/go/eutDzIjd-- , may perhaps attract copyright protection for the database structure - which, in OSM, is principally the tagging system. It could go either way for the database contents, which is still pretty uncreative _given_ that structure, but could be argued to involve careful assessment of sources and so on (Mason vs Montgomery). But as is traditional at this point, I should point out that I am not a... you know the rest. :) cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Privacy-and-Terms-tp24185975p24325453.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ed Avise...@waniasset.com wrote: Francis Davey fjm...@... writes: Therefore, granting permission on the data can only be a real consideration when there is some pre-existing law which means the other party needs such permission. That can be copyright law, database right or whatever. Sure. That's exactly right. But that assumes that the other contracting party has the data already. Having a contract that only permits you to download it from my site (or whatever) will have consideration because I don't have to let you do that Good point. So if there is a contract you must agree to before downloading the data, the consideration can be that you received a copy of the data. not really. the ODbL is enforceable through IPR alone. there is no need to have people agree to *view* the data. the license (or more probably a link to it) will be present in all downloaded data, similar to the LICENSE file in GPL software. Much better IMHO to rely on copyright law and other laws such as database right, which apply whether you have signed a contract or not. If these laws do not exist in a particular country, well, that's a choice for the citizens of that country. the ODbL does. perhaps you should read it? The idea behind the ODbL is, as I understand it, precisely to try to impose wider controls than would be possible by merely using intellectual property law. Yes, that's exactly why I for one dislike it. And the side-effects, such as banning anonymous downloads of the data set (or indeed downloads by minors, who might not be bound by any purported contract) are unpleasant too. it doesn't ban anonymouse downloads. But you are mixing up more than one issue. The lack of negotiation and standard form is a wholly different question. Such a contract (a contract of adhesion as my US colleagues would call it) may well bring in other legal considerations. Yes... I think the proposed ODbL has all three question marks over its validity as a contract. You have dealt with one of them, consideration, by pointing out that merely getting a copy of the data can be consideration - which is fine, as long as nobody somehow gets a copy other than from the OSM website... all forms of license suffer from this, including common opensource licenses like GPL, etc... even CC-BY-SA. and, as we all know, GPL and CC-BY-SA are ineffectual for databases. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
I think if your planned licence change requires people to agree to these very lengthy and legalistic 'terms and conditions' then it's an indication that you are doing something wrong. As far as I can tell Wikipedia doesn't have 'terms and conditions' on the website, despite being equally dependent on user contributions and with more scope for legal risk from libel, offensive content and so on. There is no reason anyone should have to 'agree' to anything in order to browse the website and look at the map, and if they wish to upload data to OSM, they only need agree to license it under the correct terms. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 1:20 PM, Ed Avise...@waniasset.com wrote: As far as I can tell Wikipedia doesn't have 'terms and conditions' on the website, despite being equally dependent on user contributions and with more scope for legal risk from libel, offensive content and so on. http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy see also the terms at the bottom of every edit box. There is no reason anyone should have to 'agree' to anything in order to browse the website and look at the map, and if they wish to upload data to OSM, they only need agree to license it under the correct terms. i think you have misunderstood; i don't see anyone suggesting that you'd need to explicitly agree to anything to browse the map. if they wish to upload something, they'll need an account. when they register for an account they will be presented with the contributor terms which include licensing. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Russ Nelson r...@... writes: Some of the stuff is there to help enforce the database license. If we had a license that didn't give us the occasion to sue anybody, we wouldn't need terms like that, but in fact we DO plan to sue SOMEBODY, sooner or later. And it's only reasonable to then be able to say in court Haumph, you used our website on these various occasions; continued use implies that you did IN FACT agree to abide by our distribution license. You can argue whether the terms are effective, but you can't argue against their existence in principle. Actually, I do find their existence in principle deeply troubling. The licence should not try to impose additional restrictions on people beyond their own country's copyright law (and other applicable laws such as database right). I think the GPL has the right model to follow: 'You do not have to accept this License, since you have not signed it.' Going down the road of a click-through EULA, which tries to impose additional restrictions and take away rights you had before, is not the right direction for a free data project such as OSM. I think that hypothetical legal scenarios (of how to let our lawyers best attack bad people) are far less important than maintaining an unambiguously free set of map data, respecting the rights of users and contributors, and not tangling the project up in pages of forbidding legalese. So I think such terms, whether 'effective' or not in making it easier to sue people, would certainly be effective in discouraging contributions to OSM. -- Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Ed Avise...@waniasset.com wrote: Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy see also the terms at the bottom of every edit box. These terms and conditions don't try to impose an EULA on people reading the site but give guidelines on uploading data, on copying text (which is normally restricted by copyright law, and so you need to read the licence), and the privacy policy is something that sets standards for the Wikimedia Foundation to follow, not a set of restrictions or disclaimers that users must agree to. i think you're still misunderstanding: the privacy policy and terms of service are not EULAs - they don't need to be agreed to. as you say, the privacy policy is simply a declaration by OSMF about the conditions under which it collects and retains data. the terms of service are the conditions under which you may use the site - again, they don't need to be agreed to. i think you have misunderstood; i don't see anyone suggesting that you'd need to explicitly agree to anything to browse the map. if they wish to upload something, they'll need an account. when they register for an account they will be presented with the contributor terms which include licensing. I think that's fine. In that case the 'terms and conditions' should not purport to apply to people just using the website or the OSM data (which has its own licence), but only be something you explicitly agree to on uploading data. That means any stuff about 'personal use only' and so on doesn't belong. what you're referring to are the contributor terms, which is a contract between OSMF and the contributor regularing each party's rights and obligations. wikipedia has something very similar. the personal use only stuff comes into the terms of service. you don't need to agree - it's simply a statement by OSMF that the site is intended for personal use and that any non-personal use of the site may result in service being withdrawn. to make this very, very clear: we're not proposing the privacy policy and terms of service because we're evil, or we're excited by long and boring legal documents or even that we're anticipating a clear threat. we're doing it **because our lawyer is recommending it**. wikipedia's documents are much, much shorter. why they make no explicit reference to COPPA, i don't know. how they get away with that, i don't know. all i know is that our lawyer has said that having these documents is A Good Idea. your lawyer may disagree. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 3:20 AM, Matt Amoszerebub...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jul 2, 2009 at 10:20 PM, Ed Avise...@waniasset.com wrote: Matt Amos zerebub...@... writes: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Privacy_policy see also the terms at the bottom of every edit box. These terms and conditions don't try to impose an EULA on people reading the site but give guidelines on uploading data, on copying text (which is normally restricted by copyright law, and so you need to read the licence), and the privacy policy is something that sets standards for the Wikimedia Foundation to follow, not a set of restrictions or disclaimers that users must agree to. i think you're still misunderstanding: the privacy policy and terms of service are not EULAs - they don't need to be agreed to. as you say, the privacy policy is simply a declaration by OSMF about the conditions under which it collects and retains data. the terms of service are the conditions under which you may use the site - again, they don't need to be agreed to. i think you have misunderstood; i don't see anyone suggesting that you'd need to explicitly agree to anything to browse the map. if they wish to upload something, they'll need an account. when they register for an account they will be presented with the contributor terms which include licensing. I think that's fine. In that case the 'terms and conditions' should not purport to apply to people just using the website or the OSM data (which has its own licence), but only be something you explicitly agree to on uploading data. That means any stuff about 'personal use only' and so on doesn't belong. what you're referring to are the contributor terms, which is a contract between OSMF and the contributor regularing each party's rights and obligations. wikipedia has something very similar. i should have linked to http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Contributor_Terms bear in mind that it still isn't a finished document - it's under discussion in LWG meetings and being reviewed by our lawyer. we think it sets out, with the minimum of legalese, a fair contract with the balance rights and obligations that the community wants. of course, we could be mistaken. so please let's continue discussing it. cheers, matt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Jul 2, 2009, at 6:58 PM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Nonetheless if the OSM community wants a share-alike license, it has to use this sort of language. Indeed. Consider what you would say if a lawyer looked at a program and said Why do we need all this codese? -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On 29 Jun 2009, at 17:11, SteveC wrote: On 26 Jun 2009, at 14:57, Peter Miller wrote: On 24 Jun 2009, at 06:56, SteveC wrote: Dear all One of the things that's resulted from getting help with the license process is that it's been noticed we don't have a lot of the legal furniture, and thus protection and clarity, found frequently elsewhere. We've been offered some fairly standard privacy and terms of use policies: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Privacy_Policy_- _Discussion_Draft http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_-_Discussion_Draft We've put them up for your input as step 1. These aren't even recommended by us just yet, but to start a discussion on anything that may be bad (or maybe good - that would be novel!) with them? Thanks for that Steve. Lots to think about there, but it is certainly good to start with something standard and then see what needs changing. I fully support the process of adding a clear legal framework to the project but the terms and conditions and license can't be considered in isolation without looking at the Articles of Association at the same time. Andy asked for interest from people to work on the Articles of Association but I have not heard more about it and there is nothing on the foundation website. Is there a working group for this? Who is on it? Is it publishing minutes? Are there any proposed changes available for comment? Andy? oh I see he replied My concern here is to try to avoid creating an interesting target for 'carpet baggers' who may wish to 'privatise' OSM in the way that the mutual building societies were privatised in the past ten years in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_baggers#United_Kingdom I suggest that we need to infuse all the legal arrangements with efforts to: 1) Avoid the OSMF being valuable as a 'take over' target with a potential financial value on the open market. Both the articles and the terms and conditions should help with this. I agree and, well, the key thing is that the OSMF doesn't own the data, and even if it were the licenser it can't just randomly privatise the data like CDDB right? And if not, then what is there that would give it value? 2) To protect the OSMF from hostile actions by excluding opportunities of financial reward to any parties (members, directors or contributors). Both the terms and conditions and articles should help with this. Regards, Peter Miller Best 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 Best Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk Best Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
At 03:57 PM 26/06/2009, Peter Miller wrote: My concern here is to try to avoid creating an interesting target for 'carpet baggers' who may wish to 'privatise' OSM in the way that the mutual building societies were privatised in the past ten years in the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpet_baggers#United_Kingdom I suggest that we need to infuse all the legal arrangements with efforts to: 1) Avoid the OSMF being valuable as a 'take over' target with a potential financial value on the open market. Both the articles and the terms and conditions should help with this. 2) To protect the OSMF from hostile actions by excluding opportunities of financial reward to any parties (members, directors or contributors). Both the terms and conditions and articles should help with this. Peter, We think we have come up with up with a very robust and elegant way of dealing with this by binding the Foundation when individual contributors make their contributions, see item 3 of:. http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Contributor_Terms#OpenStreetMap_Contributor_Terms (this text has just gone up on the wiki and there will be a general announcement about it to this list). This should be stronger than amending the Foundation's articles as the articles themselves are can be changed in an adverse takeover. It does not preclude tightening the articles and I personally feel we should. For propriety, we feel that the make-up of the Articles Working Group should be different from the License group. Comments welcome and appreciated. Mike License Working Group ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Russ Nelson wrote: Do you wear a helmet when you ride a bicycle? Accidents resulting in TBI are very uncommon, but their consequences are very high and a helmet will protect you from many of those consequences. Fantastic. We have now found the one OSM-related argument guaranteed to result in _more_ flames than BSD vs GPL. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ etc. Not saying I agree or otherwise, just... well. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Privacy-and-Terms-tp24185975p24215418.html Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Do you wear a helmet when you ride a bicycle? Accidents resulting in TBI are very uncommon, but their consequences are very high and a helmet will protect you from many of those consequences. Fantastic. We have now found the one OSM-related argument guaranteed to result in more flames than BSD vs GPL. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ etc. Not saying I agree or otherwise, just... well. got no choice, its the Law. helmets are also much cheaper to replace than prescription glasses - is that on the site too? -- BOFH excuse #260: We're upgrading /dev/null ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
I was relying on information in this book. Feel free to disagree with John Forester (elsewhere), but my point applies to any unlikely event of bad consequences which can me mitigated at low cost. http://books.google.com/books?id=0n2t7P1v2M8Clpg=PA25dq=%22effective%20cycling%22%20john%20forester%20helmet%20safetypg=PA24 On Jun 26, 2009, at 2:03 AM, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Russ Nelson wrote: Do you wear a helmet when you ride a bicycle? Accidents resulting in TBI are very uncommon, but their consequences are very high and a helmet will protect you from many of those consequences. Fantastic. We have now found the one OSM-related argument guaranteed to result in _more_ flames than BSD vs GPL. http://www.cyclehelmets.org/ etc. Not saying I agree or otherwise, just... well. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Hi, Russ Nelson wrote: I was relying on information in this book. Feel free to disagree with John Forester (elsewhere), but my point applies to any unlikely event of bad consequences which can me mitigated at low cost. At low cost is something that remains to be seen - with the initial version we have here, the low cost would serve to discourage any non-private users, force underage users to lie to us, and do all sorts of other ugly things which I personally consider quite a sell-out to legal scaremongers. The cost would be nothing less than losing face and admitting you do the same shit that everyone else does just because that's how the system works. I'd hope for this project to have the spine to resist putting up stupid legalese that everybody *must* ignore to stay sane. Bye Frederik ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Peter Miller wrote: Sent: 26 June 2009 2:58 PM To: Licensing and other legal discussions. Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms I fully support the process of adding a clear legal framework to the project but the terms and conditions and license can't be considered in isolation without looking at the Articles of Association at the same time. Andy asked for interest from people to work on the Articles of Association but I have not heard more about it and there is nothing on the foundation website. Is there a working group for this? Who is on it? Is it publishing minutes? Are there any proposed changes available for comment? A sufficient number of interested persons have come forward to form the group but it has yet to meet. Those who have come forward are a mixture of members and non members from various locations around the world which is good. When the group does meet the discussions and any proposals will be fully reported. Any change in the Articles requires a vote of the membership, so the purpose of the working group is not to make any change but to recommend what might be changed and the suggested wording. It will be up to the membership to decide if they want the changes or not. Cheers Andy ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Will there be some OSM-specific privacy implications not covered in the generic policy? e.g. when people use openstreetmap.org, they are potentially revealing their home/work/holiday locations, their routes to work, the pubs they visit (assuming their first OSM edit is to add their regular haunts) and many other things not collected by 'normal' websites just seems like the sort of thing a privacy policy ought to mention... ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 17:46 -0400, Russ Nelson wrote: Some of the stuff is there because of stupid-ass legislation which violates various laws (e.g. if the site is going to be used by underaged children (which of course it will) we would have to treat them differently (at least according to US law) except of course we have no freaking idea how old they are, so we just tell everyone to lie and pretend that they're of-age which of course breaks the law that you shouldn't induce peaceful honest people to lie.) God forbid a parent be involved in their child's hobbies... signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Jun 24, 2009, at 6:39 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: Hi, Russ Nelson wrote: Some of the stuff is there to make sure that we have the right to redistribute contributions to OSM. This is important and useful. I was under the impression that these terms did not have anything to do with our data. The data should be governed by the license and the contribution agreement which I thought were separate? Wiki. Diaries. Emails. Etc. Prohibited uses just gives us the right to kick fucking assholes in the butt. Sure, self-defense is the right of all civilized people, but remember this: a judge can ALWAYS get up on the wrong side of the bed and rule incorrectly. Yeah, sure, and if I leave the house a brick might fall on my head and I'd be dead. Tough luck! Do you wear a helmet when you ride a bicycle? Accidents resulting in TBI are very uncommon, but their consequences are very high and a helmet will protect you from many of those consequences. Should the OSMF wear a helmet when it supplies services to the public? -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
[OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Dear all One of the things that's resulted from getting help with the license process is that it's been noticed we don't have a lot of the legal furniture, and thus protection and clarity, found frequently elsewhere. We've been offered some fairly standard privacy and terms of use policies: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Privacy_Policy_-_Discussion_Draft http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_-_Discussion_Draft We've put them up for your input as step 1. These aren't even recommended by us just yet, but to start a discussion on anything that may be bad (or maybe good - that would be novel!) with them? Best Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On 24/06/09 06:56, SteveC wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Privacy_Policy_-_Discussion_Draft The Mozilla project has a privacy policy which I would suggest is rather friendlier, while still being lawyer-approved - at least, US lawyers. I'm sure I could arrange for you to be able to use the appropriate bits of it: http://www.mozilla-europe.org/en/about/privacy/ http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_-_Discussion_Draft These seem very long indeed. What risks are we mitigating here? If they are significant, why does every website in the world not have to have one of these? Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
Hi, Gervase Markham wrote: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use_-_Discussion_Draft These seem very long indeed. What risks are we mitigating here? If they are significant, why does every website in the world not have to have one of these? Yes, I'm also very tempted to dismiss the idea of having these at all. It sounds quite laughable. I could imagine we would have to have these if we were an US corporation but hey, we're in Europe as long as not too many people vote UKIP once Gordon Brown throws the towel. I guess the rationale behind terms like these is that if user A sues you because user B used the web site to hack A's computer, you can always say but B acted against our terms and conditions. But I don't think that user A's case would hold any water before an European court. Except as otherwise permitted, any use by you of any of the OSMF Materials and OSMF Site other than for your personal use is strictly prohibited. Are we talking about osmfoundation.org or openstreetmap.org? Because if it is the latter, which parts of the web site are NOT under either GPL or CC-BY-SA, making any restriction (personal use only) illegal? I could probably find something idiotic in every paragraph if I put my mind to it but I'd rather do something else. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
On Jun 24, 2009, at 4:31 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote: I could probably find something idiotic in every paragraph if I put my mind to it but I'd rather do something else. Some of the stuff is there simply by virtue of having any terms of use at all, e.g. Assignment, Survival, or Claims. Some of the stuff is there because of stupid-ass legislation which violates various laws (e.g. if the site is going to be used by underaged children (which of course it will) we would have to treat them differently (at least according to US law) except of course we have no freaking idea how old they are, so we just tell everyone to lie and pretend that they're of-age which of course breaks the law that you shouldn't induce peaceful honest people to lie.) Some of the stuff is there to help enforce the database license. If we had a license that didn't give us the occasion to sue anybody, we wouldn't need terms like that, but in fact we DO plan to sue SOMEBODY, sooner or later. And it's only reasonable to then be able to say in court Haumph, you used our website on these various occasions; continued use implies that you did IN FACT agree to abide by our distribution license. You can argue whether the terms are effective, but you can't argue against their existence in principle. Some of the stuff is there to make sure that we have the right to redistribute contributions to OSM. This is important and useful. Removal of content is a good term to have in place. I get mailing list subscribers asking me to remove their email address from the archives. I ignore them, thinking Too late! Think before you email! But if someone comes at me with a legal threat, and I have no contributor's agrement to point them to, I'm pretty-much going to have no choice but to remove their address. Prohibited uses just gives us the right to kick fucking assholes in the butt. Sure, self-defense is the right of all civilized people, but remember this: a judge can ALWAYS get up on the wrong side of the bed and rule incorrectly. If you have verbiage in your TC that lets you point out, in appeal, excuse me, but we *did* tell them exactly what would happen if they did that, and we did it, so they have no reason to prevail in a judgement. And if you think that you're safe just because you live in Europe, consider that the OSMF provides services in the USA. It can say to the judge we don't operate in the US; this person has no opportunity to sue us, but who knows what might happen in the future? Maybe one of the principals of the OSMF might fly through the US, or move to the US, or start a US company. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/6/25 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: Yeah, sure, and if I leave the house a brick might fall on my head and I'd be dead. I'm almost sure you wanted to write tile ;-) cheers, Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/6/25 Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org: For example, if we build strong national chapters that, legally, are separate from OSMF, these could easily between themselves set up all the servers required to replace everything OSMF operates. With such a healthy backup network, it would not even make much sense for anybody to try and kill off OSMF. This includes not giving anything to OSMF that has commercial value unless that is absolutely necessary. In the long term, I hope that we'll be able to switch to a distributed server architecture where OSMF operated assets are but one piece of the puzzle, rather than the head of everything. Hallo Frederik, kennst Du couchdb? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CouchDB Ich habe leider selbst keine Ahnung von Datenbanken, aber die bietet wohl eine gute Möglichkeit, auf vielen verschiedenen Servern gleichzeitíg zu laufen. Keine Ahnung wie performant das ist, wo die Probleme liegen,etc. aber beim sie scheint ähnlich wie das OSM-Modell strukturiert zu sein (Key/Value-Paare). Vielleicht ist das Thema ja in Entwicklerkreisen sowieso schon längst bekannt, aber bei Deinem aktuellen Beitrag kam mir wieder der Gedanke und ich dachte, ich schreib Dir mal. Gruß Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms
2009/6/25 Martin Koppenhoefer dieterdre...@gmail.com: Hallo Frederik oops, sorry, not for the list. Martin ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
