[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Progressing OSM to a new dataLicence regime

[Jordan S Hatcher]

On 6 Feb 2008, at 12:19, Gervase Markham wrote:

>
>> I think it's important to point out that commercial companies
>> protecting their data do not allow their users to share it, and so
>> most of their protection is based around this. By allowing others to
>> share the work freely, you lose many of these avenues of protection
>> (like technical protection measures, for example).
>
> This seems like equivocation on the word "protection". Your first use
> means "restricting copying", and so your first clause is a tautology.
> The last use means something wider.
>
> OSM is looking for "protection" in the sense of "legally-enforceable
> restrictions". Commercial mapping companies make "no  
> redistribution" one
> of their restrictions, but we don't. However, I don't see why that
> should reduce the force of the legal mechanisms they and we can use to
> enforce our restrictions.

Thanks for the comment.

You pointed out my use of the word protection [1], which may have  
been unclear on what I was referring. Protection could be by legal  
tools or by using other methods (such as the ones I mentioned).

My point is that there are other tools beyond contract (legal and  
otherwise) based around not allowing further re-distribution.

-- one cannot rely on passwords and other controls to restrict access  
to data (protecting it with a physical lock) and give anyone the  
password, as it defeats the purpose of having a password in the first  
place. A copyleft data licence can't use passwords to protect its  
data. This is a non-legal protection not available for open data.
-- take trade secret for example. You cannot give everyone  
information and then claim it is a secret. A commercial company could  
have data protected by contract that they prohibit further  
distribution and obligate the user to secrecy for the data. This is a  
legal protection not available for open data.

You also wrote:

> OSM is looking for "protection" in the sense of "legally-enforceable
> restrictions".

I would think that OSM would be looking at all ways of protecting  
their content in the way they choose best -- be it legal, technical,  
or otherwise.

Thanks!

~Jordan

____
Mr. Jordan S Hatcher, JD, LLM

jordan at opencontentlawyer dot com
OC Blog: http://opencontentlawyer.com
IP/IT Blog: http://twitchgamer.net

Open Data Commons
<http://opendatacommons.org>

Usage of Creative Commons by cultural heritage organisations
http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/studies/cc2007


[1]
protection |prəˈtek sh ən|
noun
the action of protecting someone or something, or the state of being  
protected