Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is this click through agreement compatible with OSM?
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Gregory Arenius greg...@arenius.com wrote: 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. Ok, well argued. 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. One thing I'm curious about is the terms about indemnifying the City of SF against possible harm resulting from using the data. Let's say hypothetically that some third party uses the data that you incorporated into OSM, crashed their car due to bad data, and hypothetically they could sue someone over it. Now the OSM license disclaims liability (on the part of OSMF?) but does that other idemnification apply? (Actually I'm not sure what I'm asking actually makes sense.) Steve ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is this click through agreement compatible with OSM?
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Steve Bennett stevag...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:56 PM, Gregory Arenius greg...@arenius.com wrote: 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. Ok, well argued. 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. One thing I'm curious about is the terms about indemnifying the City of SF against possible harm resulting from using the data. Let's say hypothetically that some third party uses the data that you incorporated into OSM, crashed their car due to bad data, and hypothetically they could sue someone over it. Now the OSM license disclaims liability (on the part of OSMF?) but does that other idemnification apply? (Actually I'm not sure what I'm asking actually makes sense.) I understand your question and it does make sense. I'd think if they used our data under a license that disclaims liability that that would be the end of it but. Cheers, Gregory Arenius ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CT clarification: third-party sources
On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 9:44 AM, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: Anthony schrieb: It's not clear what the denominator is supposed to be. 2/3 of me are still trying to understand you, the rest are yelling he's crazy! - can you clarify what you mean? It's unclear to me whether a 2/3 majority of active contributors have to vote yes, or merely 2/3 of some unspecified quorum of active contributors. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
