On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:11 PM, Richard Weait <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 8:49 PM, Katie Filbert <[email protected]> wrote: > > I am inquiring about data provided by the cities of Toronto, Vancouver, > and > > Edmonton -- all essentially have the same terms of use, almost > word-for-word > > -- and want to identify what the specific problems are with the terms of > > use. > > > > > http://www.edmonton.ca/city_government/open_data/open-data-terms-of-use.aspx > > http://www.toronto.ca/open/terms.htm > > http://data.vancouver.ca/termsOfUse.htm > > > > The problems that I see include: > [all of it] > > Agreed. Their license is no good for us. I've been encouraging > Toronto to take a look at PDDL. > Agree that PDDL would be good, though it might be asking too much at this point. If they took out all the points that I listed, is what's left acceptable? I think that if their terms say that they make no warranty of the data and cannot be held liable for any problems with the data, that's okay. Also okay if they specify that they do not give no endorsement (of reuses) and their trademarks are protected? It's also okay for them to say they may change or discontinue providing the data at any time, and the part about requesting (but not requiring) attribution is fine? Alternatively, if they gave OpenStreetMap a waiver for the objectionable terms, would that be okay? Regards, Katie -- Katie Filbert [email protected] @filbertkm
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
