[OSM-legal-talk] Protection time of ODbL

[Matt Amos]

On 9/29/09, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
>> The same goes with the ODbL. Once you make a planet dump and let 15 years
>> pass, you can not assert any rights over the dump... so you can not assert
>>
>> the ODbL. Simple as that.
>
> Question is: 1. what about the contents themselves. Have we reached a
> consensus that the contents of the database are themselves not protected
> by copyright and do we explicitly say that we don't claim any copyright?

yes. see the contributor terms document.

>   And 2. you are wrong because ODBL tries exactly that, to assert rights
> over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none, by
> invoking the idea of a contract - so where is it written that the
> contract, which may well exist in parallel to sui generis rights in
> Europe, also terminates after 15 years?

you're wrong - the contract asserts no rights over the collection.
that's why we need a contract, because there are no "sui generis"
rights to take advantage of.

again, this is something that can be addressed in the next version of
ODbL - which will hopefully take less than 15 years to arrive.

> The contributor terms should be able to answer the copyright question
> clearly but I'm apalled to see it has grown into a "legal document"
> whose foremost purpose is to *not* answer anything clearly or quickly.

sadly, this seems unavoidable. it appears that in the legal world you
can have clarity or enforceability, but never both. it's our role as a
community to produce "human readable" documents which describe these
legal documents in a way that everyone can understand.

> Well, after that short diatribe - I can't answer the question for sure.
> We require from our contributors that they grant OSMF and any recipient
> of the data to do anything that would normally be restricted by
> copyright; this sounds like we're waiving any potential copyright
> protection over the contents themselves. Right?

yes. over insubstantial amounts of data, there's no copyright claimed.

For the avoidance of Doubt, remember that repeated Extractions of
Insubstantial amounts of the aforementioned Contents are considered to
constitute a Substantial Extract, and are therefore subject to the
Terms of the License. ;-)

cheers,

matt