[OSM-legal-talk] Deconstructing the "loss of data" claim
frederik at remote.org
Wed Feb 20 00:56:32 GMT 2008
> For now, as Jordan is an actual lawyer, I'm going to continue voting
Jordan said, in a recent response to one of my posts and comparing ODL
to a PD-type license:
"I personally am neutral on a preference between the two and think
that it would be wholly inappropriate for me to recommend one or the
other to OSM. I think that anyone wanting to use one of the
approaches should pick the one that best suits their needs."
So while he crafted ODL and thinks it would work, he doesn't actually
recommend anything, saying basically that we should know best what's
good for us.
I have the impression that we don't know best what is good for us and
thus I am very happy for input from the outside, especially input that
recommends something. (We can then discuss whether we find that
recommendation stupid or not.)
The bone of contention seems to be the database law. Jordan hints at
this with "To not use an available legal tool to accomplish a certain
goal (share alike for data) doesn't make sense to me", and about the
situation in the US (where the license relies on contract) he says:
"How enforceable it is, is one of the questions we'd hoped would be
addressed by feedback in the beta stage.", whereas John seems to be
convinced that it won't work: "Unlike the copyright on a song, which
travels along with the song no matter what, the share-alike is
restricted to the parties of the contract."
I don't think it is fair to dismiss John's statement the way you do.
And I fail to see why the amount of money the CC may or may not have
has anything to do with it.
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
More information about the legal-talk