[OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime

[Tom Hughes]

In message <47a74c8f.AbnlhBkD60FCziRg%mjr at phonecoop.coop>
          MJ Ray <mjr at phonecoop.coop> wrote:

> After all, with the FDL, there was enough "room for mischief" that a
> GNU project declared its whole manual to be an invariant section and a
> magazine that said its table of contents was an invariant section.
> Those uses were clearly not what FDL's authors intended, but there
> will always be someone who misinterprets or deliberately misuses a
> licence and then the default licensing position is "no licence".

But the default position is not "no license" when it comes to
databases. What you say is perfectly correct for creative works
where copyright applies, but in most countries copyright does
not apply to collections of facts and you have to rely on
database right in those countries where it exists. Where database
right does not exist the default position is that anybody can
do what they want.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)
http://www.compton.nu/