[OSM-legal-talk] Updated Brief and Use Cases page

[Richard Fairhurst]

Peter Miller wrote:

> [...]
> Should it be possible to licence ‘end user experiences’ any way one  
> wants, or must they be licenced to avoid the possibility of reverse  
> engineering mapping data from them. My understanding is that once  
> one has put the map into the public domain then anyone can use it  
> as a source of a new DB that is public domain. A slippery map that  
> has PD tiles could rapidly be used to create a PD dataset. If there  
> are restrictions on licencing end-user experiences, then what  
> should they be?


ODBL makes it explicit that a reverse-engineered database is still  
subject to the provisions of the licence. This is IMHO the correct  
approach.

For that reason I think it's impossible for an "integrated  
experience" (ODBL language) to be truly PD. It can, however, have a  
significantly more nuanced licence than is available right now.

> What about wikimapia? Personally it seems like an example of  
> extracting a public domain DB from the OSM while avoiding the share- 
> alike clause and so this should appear in the negative use cases  
> section.


In copyright terms Wikimapia (and its ilk) are <steve_jobs>a bag of  
hurt</steve_jobs>. They are founded on bogus assumptions that don't  
pay any attention to Google et al.'s terms of service (though see Ed  
Parsons' recent blog postings for an interesting counterview).  
Therefore there is no reason for us to pay special attention to them  
- because they'd just ignore our licence anyway.

Don't confuse Wikimapia with public domain. Entirely different.  
Wikimapia, Placeopedia, et al claim (unjustifiably) a copyright in  
their own works. That clearly ain't PD.

cheers
Richard