On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 4:27 AM, Steve Bennett <stevag...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:16 AM, Gregory Arenius <greg...@arenius.com> > wrote: > > city changed the click through to address those problems. The agreement > is > > located here: http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfshare/index2.asp. > > See this clause: > >These Terms of Use do not grant You any title or right to any such > intellectual property rights that the City or others may have in the GIS > Data. > > Translation: "You don't own it." > The full clause is: IV. City's intellectual property rights not affected If the City claims or seeks to protect any patent, copyright, or other intellectual property rights in any GIS Data, the website will so indicate in the file containing such GIS Data or on the page from which such GIS Data is accessed. These Terms of Use do not grant You any title or right to any such intellectual property rights that the City or others may have in the GIS Data. I read this as saying that the terms of use, which are there as a hold harmless waiver, don't grant any rights. It specifically states that if the city is claiming copyright on the data it will do so in the file or on the website that the file is accessed from. The file in question has no such claims. > > Now see this clause: > >You agree to only add Contents for which You are the copyright holder > > Translation: "You don't own it, you can't add it." > > I believe you're refering to the CTs. My understanding is that the current draft states: "You represent and warrant that, to the best of your knowledge, You are legally entitled to grant the licence in Sections 2 and 3 below." My understanding is that I am legally entitled to grant that license because the city isn't claiming copyright on the data. Its public domain and as such can be added. I think the current draft of the CTs was changed to accommodate such things. > (I'm glad this isn't just about Nearmap now.) > > I sympathize with the Nearmap issues but I'm not sure that this is a comparable situation. I've heard a lot of differing opinions on this issue but my reading is that everything is okay. I don't just want to steamroll through if other people think otherwise but I do think that we're okay using this data. Is there a way to get a more definitive reading of things? A working group or something? Cheers, Gregory Arenius
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
