[OSM-legal-talk] Proposal to update the Use Cases page

[OJ W]

On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Peter Miller <peter.miller at itoworld.com> wrote:
>
> On 1 Mar 2009, at 21:49, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Peter Miller wrote:
>>> I think these Use Cases are going to end up being twins of an
>>> eventual
>>> FAQ that I imagine will exist.
>>
>> I am starting to think that perhaps the license should be
>> accompanied by
>> a kind of "interpretation document" which may or may not be the same
>> as
>> this FAQ.
>>
>> There are probably things that the license will never specify exactly,
>> like the question of "where in this chain does that database cease to
>> exist". As stated numerous times on this list, applying the EU
>> definition of "database", even a PNG tile is a database...
>>
>> So if we'd have a document clarifying these things for OSM - even if
>> this might not be legally binding but just an expression of intent -
>> that would be a much better basis for the individual mapper to
>> actually
>> say yes.
>
> I agree. The license is the License, and that is by necessity written
> in legal language.  If we use the Use Case page to describe common
> real life situations and then get the lawyers in the end to give their
> verdict on them it will form a very useful bridge between the
> practical and the legal. It will also mean that most people will be
> able to see 'their' use listed with a bit 'yes' next to it which will
> be reassuring,

that would only be meaningful if it were incorporated into the
license?  (e.g. see SCO vs Novell where the language of a contract was
sufficiently clear that the parties' interpretations of it were not
even considered)