Hi, Am 22.07.2018 um 22:06 schrieb teslas_moustache: > “This site provides applications using data that has been modified > for use from its original source, www.data.kcmo.gov, the official open > data website of the City of Kansas City. The City of Kansas City makes > no claims as to the content, accuracy, timeliness, or completeness of > any of the data provided at this site. The data provided at this site is > subject to change at any time. It is understood that the data provided > at this site is being used at one’s own risk.”
If this disclaimer had to added to a derived or collective database of OSM data or a produced work thereof, this term would be incompatible with our license. > Comply with any additional Terms of Use set forth by the City agency > or department providing data used by the software application, or other > secondary or derivative application, including, without limitation, > requirements to include additional citations or disclaimers at the site > where the application can be accessed or downloaded. > > RESERVATION OF RIGHTS > > The City reserves the right to discontinue availability of content > on this website at any time and for any reason. The City reserves the > right to claim or seek to protect any patent, copyright, trademark, or > other intellectual property rights in any of the information, images, > software, or processes displayed or used at this website. These Terms of > Use do not grant anyone any title or right to any patent, copyright, > trademark or other intellectual property rights that the City may have > in any of the information, images, software, or processes displayed or > used at this website. This term is vague. That's why I think that it is incompatible. Data to be added to OSM must not have revokeable licenses (except violation of the license). > INDEMNITY > > To the fullest extent permitted by law, any user of the data > provided at this website shall indemnify and hold harmless the City from > any claim, loss, damage, injury, or liability of any kind (including, > without limitation, incidental and consequential damages, court costs, > attorney’s fees and costs of investigation), that arises directly or > indirectly, in whole or in part, from that user’s use of this data, > including any secondary or derivative use of the information provided > herein. This term is also incompatible. > The data is therefore, in effect, clearly in the Public Domain. I think that we have a different interpretation of the term "public domain". The reserve some rights and require you to follow some rules. Therefore, it is not public domain any more. Please get in touch with the city and ask them to either publish the data under a CC-BY + the waiver [1] provided by the OSMF to remove some incompatible terms of the license. Alternatively, you can ask them to publish it as real public domain (my interpretation) or to sign the Contributor Terms [2]. Using a standard license which has been analysed already is the recommended way. Otherwise, you might have to wait for a few months until the busy volunteers in the LWG have got the time to read and analyse the custom license. If the city persist on the cited terms, you have to go out and map. 1,605 is not much. If you invite one or two other mappers, it is even more fun than an import. [3] Best regards Michael [1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3PN5zfbzThqeTdWR1l3SzJVcTg/view [2] https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms [3] I am not a really active mapper but HDYC says that I estimate that I have added 10,000 to 40,000 housenumbers to OSM in the last seven years by foot, bicycle and car. -- Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten ausgenommen) I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Imports mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/imports
