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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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?).
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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 -
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
41 matches
Mail list logo
