Draft Terms of use for the OSM website, API and other services

Previous Topic Next Topic
 
classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
4 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Draft Terms of use for the OSM website, API and other services

SimonPoole

Hi all

Thanks to work by Kathleen Lu we have a draft Terms of Use document.


This is a first for OSM given that we've never really spelled out anything with respect to using the API and website up to now, outside of the more technical aspects in the acceptable use documents.

The main motivation for this is driven by the GDPR related changes (not trying to identify users, restrictions on use by minors and so on), but there are certain rules that we should have probably been explicit about all along too. We expect that all access to the website, API and other services will be contingent on having agreed to the terms.

Comments are welcome, best per mail or specific comments on the document.

Simon
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Osmf-talk] Draft Terms of use for the OSM website, API and other services

Michael Reichert-3
Hi Simon, dear other LWG members,

Am 29.07.2018 um 08:08 schrieb Simon Poole:

> Thanks to work by Kathleen Lu we have a draft Terms of Use document.
>
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xtPjrTj09vQLloKmzyf-H-5mKtqh-vbPjsxE-5YRF5g/edit?usp=sharing
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xtPjrTj09vQLloKmzyf-H-5mKtqh-vbPjsxE-5YRF5g/edit?usp=sharing>
>
> This is a first for OSM given that we've never really spelled out
> anything with respect to using the API and website up to now, outside of
> the more technical aspects in the acceptable use documents.
>
> The main motivation for this is driven by the GDPR related changes (not
> trying to identify users, restrictions on use by minors and so on), but
> there are certain rules that we should have probably been explicit about
> all along too. We expect that all access to the website, API and other
> services will be contingent on having agreed to the terms.
>
> Comments are welcome, best per mail or specific comments on the document.
I read the draft and I think that is far too long. It does not invited
to be read by the users. This can lead to following issues:

- Users don't read it because it is too boring, too long and too
difficult to understand (especially for the majority being not native
English speakers or understanding no English at all). They would be
surprised by the important parts later.
- Already active members of the community refuse to accept the terms
because they don't understand the needs and the content.

If we need all that rules written down there, we should add a summary of
the points which are most important from our point of view at the
beginning. It could look like this:

- You have access to personal data (OSM metadata). Please handle it
appropriate.
- Your contributions must not violate copyright.
- You must be 16 years or older to join OSM.
- We don't guarantee anything. [insert better wording here]

The OSMF has already a block policy ruling when users get blocked
permanently and how. If we add terms to the website, we should integrate
the block policy into the terms. This has the advantage that user
actively agree the block policy which makes it a lot easier to use it in
court (I am not talking about a fictional case here).

Best regards

Michael

--
Per E-Mail kommuniziere ich bevorzugt GPG-verschlüsselt. (Mailinglisten
ausgenommen)
I prefer GPG encryption of emails. (does not apply on mailing lists)


_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

signature.asc (836 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Osmf-talk] Draft Terms of use for the OSM website, API and other services

SimonPoole


Am 08.08.2018 um 19:14 schrieb Michael Reichert:
> ..
> I read the draft and I think that is far too long. It does not invited
> to be read by the users. This can lead to following issues:
Just to be clear, we (the LWG) would prefer that it be shorter too, it
is just the amount of territory that needs to be covered that makes it
long and complicated (I'm fairly sure that it is actually shorter than
the WP ToU that it is derived from).

> - Users don't read it because it is too boring, too long and too
> difficult to understand (especially for the majority being not native
> English speakers or understanding no English at all). They would be
> surprised by the important parts later.
> - Already active members of the community refuse to accept the terms
> because they don't understand the needs and the content.
>
> If we need all that rules written down there, we should add a summary of
> the points which are most important from our point of view at the
> beginning. It could look like this:
>
> - You have access to personal data (OSM metadata). Please handle it
> appropriate.
> - Your contributions must not violate copyright.
> - You must be 16 years or older to join OSM.
> - We don't guarantee anything. [insert better wording here]
We'll be discussing both the concept of a human readable summary and
translations at a our meeting today (both ideas were floated at SOTM). 
I wouldn't put too much hope in it though, in the end we need users to
agree to the terms themselves and not to a summary, adding one just
means there is even more text that needs to be read (have a look at
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en for the WP ToU).
Translations are mainly an issue of cost (both initial and maintenance).

> The OSMF has already a block policy ruling when users get blocked
> permanently and how. If we add terms to the website, we should integrate
> the block policy into the terms. This has the advantage that user
> actively agree the block policy which makes it a lot easier to use it in
> court (I am not talking about a fictional case here).
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
You were just complaining about the ToU being too long, adding the
kitchen sink is definitely not going to make them shorter :-).

Simon




_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk

signature.asc (499 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: [Osmf-talk] Draft Terms of use for the OSM website, API and other services

Heather Leson-2
Dear all,

how about a brief companion FAQ? I am happy to help with this (as mentioned in Milan)

Michael, would you like to collaborate on this with us?

heather

Heather Leson
[hidden email]
Twitter/skype: HeatherLeson
Blog: textontechs.com

On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Simon Poole <[hidden email]> wrote:


Am 08.08.2018 um 19:14 schrieb Michael Reichert:
> ..
> I read the draft and I think that is far too long. It does not invited
> to be read by the users. This can lead to following issues:
Just to be clear, we (the LWG) would prefer that it be shorter too, it
is just the amount of territory that needs to be covered that makes it
long and complicated (I'm fairly sure that it is actually shorter than
the WP ToU that it is derived from).

> - Users don't read it because it is too boring, too long and too
> difficult to understand (especially for the majority being not native
> English speakers or understanding no English at all). They would be
> surprised by the important parts later.
> - Already active members of the community refuse to accept the terms
> because they don't understand the needs and the content.
>
> If we need all that rules written down there, we should add a summary of
> the points which are most important from our point of view at the
> beginning. It could look like this:
>
> - You have access to personal data (OSM metadata). Please handle it
> appropriate.
> - Your contributions must not violate copyright.
> - You must be 16 years or older to join OSM.
> - We don't guarantee anything. [insert better wording here]

We'll be discussing both the concept of a human readable summary and
translations at a our meeting today (both ideas were floated at SOTM). 
I wouldn't put too much hope in it though, in the end we need users to
agree to the terms themselves and not to a summary, adding one just
means there is even more text that needs to be read (have a look at
https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Terms_of_Use/en for the WP ToU).
Translations are mainly an issue of cost (both initial and maintenance).

> The OSMF has already a block policy ruling when users get blocked
> permanently and how. If we add terms to the website, we should integrate
> the block policy into the terms. This has the advantage that user
> actively agree the block policy which makes it a lot easier to use it in
> court (I am not talking about a fictional case here).
>
> Best regards
>
> Michael
You were just complaining about the ToU being too long, adding the
kitchen sink is definitely not going to make them shorter :-).

Simon




_______________________________________________
osmf-talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/osmf-talk



_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk