[OSM-legal-talk] Factual Information License and Produced Works?
80n80n at gmail.com
Mon Mar 2 12:08:24 GMT 2009
On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>wrote:
> 80n wrote:
> > As far as I know there has been no attention paid to the FIL. It
> > was grabbed at the last minute from here
> > I don't know whether or not it has been reviewed by Clark Asay but I've
> > not seen any evidence to suggest that it has.
> > In my opinion the FIL is much more important than the ODbL and yet it
> > has had very little attention.
> As you know (and without wanting to reopen Saturday's argument) I don't
> believe that users are intended to sign up to the FIL. I believe that
> they're intended to sign up to the ODbL, and that each user is viewed as
> contributing a database of content to the wider OSM database, the
> "atoms" of which are licensed as FIL to recognise that they are,
> essentially, facts. (One could argue that, coincidentally, the changeset
> model being adopted with 0.6 makes the conceptual leap to "database" very
> easy indeed.)
It's not clear to me, and you could well be right.
I've requested clarification of the legal advice we have been given on this
point. Apparently the sentence referring to the FIL in Grant's email was
inserted by Steve, so I've asked Steve to copy us on the original advice
provided by Clark Asay.
> Clearly from Saturday's postings you disagree. Nonetheless the very fact
> that there is some uncertainty about this merits a clarification, ideally
> both from Jordan and these Wilson Sonsini chaps.
> View this message in context:
> Sent from the OpenStreetMap - Legal Talk mailing list archive at
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk