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

[Peter Miller]

On 1 Mar 2009, at 22:33, OJ W wrote:

> 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)

I am not familiar with that case, but I think we should ensure that  
everything in the FAQ/Use Cases is confirmed by the license, but it is  
written in a much more useful and relevant form for most people. The  
FAQ would say at the top 'this is not the license, the license is the  
license and if there is a conflict then the license and what is  
written here then the license is the definitive source.

This is not too different from the CC summary page that says 'This is  
a human-readable summary of the Legal Code (the full license).
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/


Regards,


Peter


>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk