[OSM-legal-talk] Fwd: [ORG-discuss] Open Data Commons draft licence

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Tue Sep 25 12:47:41 BST 2007


> So they're proposing that a database like ours could be covered by the
> Open Database Licence
> (http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-database-licence/),
> and the contents of it could be covered by the Factual Info Licence
> (http://www.opencontentlawyer.com/open-data/open-data-commons- 
> factual-info-licence/).

Am I reading this right:

1. What the mapper collects is "data", and would be expected to be  
licensed under the BSD-like "factual info licence". This would mean a  
relaxation compared to the current situation; currently if someone  
puts in a true fact I can use that freely (because facts are free)  
but if malicious Eve maps an easter egg she can sue me for copyright  
infringement if I use that. With all data being explicitly under the  
"factual info license", this cannot happen because Eve would  
explicitly release her easter egg as a "fact".

2. The mapper then combines his "data" into a "database" of his own  
(an OSM file created with JOSM for example).

3. By uploading the databases to OSM, a "collective database" is  
formed, with the requirement to give attribution to the "names of  
databases" used in forming the collective database (not: names of  

Do others read it likewise, or do you think that what the mapper has  
is only data, and the database is only created when uploading? Or  
would you say that the user has a database and when uploading, a  
"derivative database" is formed?


Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00.09' E008°23.33'

More information about the legal-talk mailing list