Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Is this click through agreement compatible with OSM?
Making sure mike sees this thread... He's been talking to the same people I believe. Steve stevecoast.com On Dec 11, 2010, at 1:27 PM, 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. 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'm glad this isn't just about Nearmap now.) Steve ___ 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] CT clarification: third-party sources
Anthony schrieb: On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 9:33 AM, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at wrote: Ed Avis schrieb: Well, 67% of 'active contributors' however defined. Wait. Stop for a moment here. Doesn't the CT have a very clear definition of how active contributors are defined? There's not a clear definition of how 67% is defined, though. If 67% is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then. Robert Kaiser ___ 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 12 December 2010 14:08, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: If 67% is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then. There's no such thing as legalese as I've said before. The CT's don't say 67% they say 2/3, which is completely clear. The phrase at least a 2/3 majority vote has a pretty clear and unambiguous meaning. -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Defining free and open (Re: CT clarification: third-party sources)
On 11/12/10 17:27, Simon Ward wrote: On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 02:18:29PM +, Rob Myers wrote: Why leave it undefined? To allow it to be defined by the community. Which I suppose means that if the community could always say It's the OKD, stupid!. :-) Ok, well I guess I’m trying to say “it’s the OKD, stupid!” :) Sure. If there's a popular call for it then the OKD is excellent. :-) - Rob. ___ 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 11/12/10 18:31, Simon Ward wrote: Then I don’t know how to argue against fear (or rationale based on fear). Do you have any pointers? :) My argument is neither motivated by fear nor requires fear in order to make the point that I believe it does. And I do not believe that the general argument in favour of allowing relicencing does either. I think we both agree that the on-going usefulness of the data is important. If we differ on what the likely events that might affect that usefulness are then that doesn't mean that either of our arguments are emotive rather than rational. the freedom to relicence is only a small part in the continued usefulness of the data. Small, unlikely, but important. - Rob. ___ 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 Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 9:20 AM, Francis Davey fjm...@gmail.com wrote: On 12 December 2010 14:08, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at wrote: If 67% is not clear in legalese, then legalese is stupid, IMHO. Let's abolish all legal rules and make contributing fun instead, then. There's no such thing as legalese as I've said before. The CT's don't say 67% they say 2/3, which is completely clear. The phrase at least a 2/3 majority vote has a pretty clear and unambiguous meaning. It's not clear what the denominator is supposed to be. ___ 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
