[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL for the DB; what about the contents?

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Thu Oct 9 01:34:48 BST 2008


Simon Ward wrote:
> So in any jurisdiction where individual data items _are_ eligible for
> protection someone could incorporate them into their work and not be
> obliged to share derived versions?

Yes, exactly.

This is in my eyes the only pragmatic way to go, because otherwise we 
would have to find ways to make the distinction. How will the potential 
user know whether the data you entered is just fact, or the result of a 
complex approximation that took you a day's work? If someone later moves 
your precious approximated riverbed according to a GPS trace he took 
while canoeing, would this then "downgrade" the data item from being 
specially protected to just fact?

> everywhere but, as with software, it’s better to force the issue and try
> to improve restrictive laws _everywhere_, so I’m not convinced an all
> permissive licence is enough.

Some of us might be on a mission to improve the world but most of us 
want to make a map that's usable without hiring a team of lawyers. I 
think your idea that some data items might be facts and some might be 
works of art just complicates the whole issue beyond what we can handle.

If it is a work of art that you want protected, then don't contribute it.


Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"

More information about the legal-talk mailing list