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] Is this click through agreement compatible with OSM?
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
[OSM-legal-talk] Is this click through agreement compatible with OSM?
The city of San Francisco has made a bunch of geo data available. I plan on importing the address nodes so that we can have door to door routing for San Francisco and for geocoding purposes. I just want to see if the click through is compatible. My understanding is that the data is basically public domain and the agreement is mostly a hold harmless type of thing. This is based on my reading of it and what they city has told me they intend it to be. I have asked about this before and there were problems but the city changed the click through to address those problems. The agreement is located here: http://gispub02.sfgov.org/website/sfshare/index2.asp. Thoughts? Cheers, Greg ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] list of user IDs having accepted the contributor terms
Any info on who, or at least what percentage of people, clicked on the all my edits are public domain checkbox? Just curious. Cheers, Greg On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 11:22 AM, Matt Amos zerebub...@gmail.com wrote: as part of the voluntary relicensing phase of the move to ODbL, existing contributors have had the ability to voluntarily accept the contributor terms. to help the community assess the impact of the relicensing it was planned to make the information about which accounts have agreed available. this will help with the evaluation of the process and analysis of any consequent data loss, should the switch be made. at the last LWG meeting, having been put to the board for approval, it was decided to make this available [1], and i'm pleased to announce that this list is now up [2] and being regularly refreshed from the database every hour. i look forward to seeing the new analyses, visualisations and tools that can be built using this data. cheers, matt [1] https://docs.google.com/View?id=dd9g3qjp_86hf7fnqg8 [2] http://planet.openstreetmap.org/users_agreed/users_agreed.txt ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is this clickthrough agreement compatible with OSM?
Replying to myself here but... The city sent me a prompt reply to my email. They're big fans of our work and would like to help. I will probably be meeting with one of them in the coming week to discuss ways that we can collaborate and what data sets we would like access to. I wanted to ask here what exactly I need to ask for with respect to licensing? Just explicit permission to use the data in OSM? Anything else? Thanks, Greg On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 5:11 AM, Gregory Arenius greg...@arenius.comwrote: I must have missed that particular section somehow. I sent off an email to ask the city if we could get the data under a license we could use. We'll see what happens. As to how many OSMers are in the city its hard to say exactly. There are a few people working on the map pretty frequently and a lot of one time editors who just edit one or two points. Interestingly one of the last one time editors had the user name Monica at sfgov. Greg ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is this clickthrough agreement compatible with OSM?
I must have missed that particular section somehow. I sent off an email to ask the city if we could get the data under a license we could use. We'll see what happens. As to how many OSMers are in the city its hard to say exactly. There are a few people working on the map pretty frequently and a lot of one time editors who just edit one or two points. Interestingly one of the last one time editors had the user name Monica at sfgov. Greg ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
