[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Defining Substantial in OSM's Context

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Lauri Hahne wrote:
> I think the problem here is that our own definition of substantial is
> by no means binding. The definition of substantial in ODbL comes
> pretty straight from EU's database directive and the definition is
> ultimately up to courts to decide.

You are right but what do you suggest we do? Is it not better to at 
least offer "our" definition to users than to sit back and say "ask a 
lawyer"?

Assuming for a moment that OSMF is the creator of the database in the 
sense of the database directive, then there are two possibilities: We 
can interpret the term stricter or less strict than intended by the law.

Where our interpretation is less strict, this is not a problem; we 
simply grant our users more rights than they would have by law. Someone 
within our interpretation can be sure that we're not going to sue him, 
which is much better than not having our interpretation.

Where our interpretation is stricter than the law, a user could 
theoretically extract more than our interpretation allows and use it 
freely; we would have to sue him for breach of license, and he would 
have to convince the court that his use is indeed allowed by the 
database directive. It is quite likely that the court would at least 
take our definition into consideration. If we lose then we can amend our 
definition of "substantial".

Offering a definition adds clarity for everyone involved. It is a good 
thing.

Bye
Frederik