[OSM-legal-talk] Deconstructing the "loss of data" claim

[bvh]

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 01:20:54AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Well I think the key problem with the current license is that we don't
> adhere to it ourselves, and that it is quite unclear how the license
> is to be applied in many cases. (Just one example of many: The derived
> work vs. collected work question; we have the informal agreement
> within the community that displaying OSM and non-OSM tiles in a
> layered slippy map makes a collected work, not a derived work. But
> that's not at all clear from the license. Insecurities like that keep
> users away and serve to make us basically CC-BY-SA-NC as any
> commercial entity with something to lose will shy away from using
> OSM.)

Strange then that the position of Creative Commons is that there
is no effective copyright... If it is such a clear cut case as
Creative Commons maintains, then where do the insecurities come from?

(This is not a question actually directed to you, but more to the
guy from CC that came on the list claiming a no-copyright)

cu bart