[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Wed Dec 8 20:10:22 GMT 2010


On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:36 PM, Francis Davey <fjmd1a at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 December 2010 17:23, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>>
>> The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right.  1.2 (*) says that
>> the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according
>> to you the individual contributors can't have the right in the first
>> place.
>
> I think there's some mistaken use of terminology here, which may be
> confusing some people (even if not you). As it stands 1.2 grants a
> licence to use the contributed data in any way restricted by the
> database right (or copyright). It does not grant the right itself.
> OSMF does not become the owner of the right as a result.
>
> There's a lot of complex law here, but my best guess is that the sui
> generis right is first owned by the contributors collectively, so that
> their permission is required for its use. There are problems with that
> view, but other views are more problematic. As you know database right
> law is still in its infancy, so its hard to be sure.
>
>>
>> The situation doesn't seem any more clear to me, except for the fact
>> that the individual contributors clearly don't have the right.  But
>
> I'm not sure that is clear at all. I'd certainly think there's a good
> arguable case that the contributors jointly own a database right in
> the map data.

Okay, yes, you're quite right about this.  I guess I went too deep
into the "let's assume temporarily that it really isn't possible to
have collective database rights, even though I'm not sure whether or
not this is the case".

>> you say that's already clear anyway, because it would be impossible.
>>
>> If it is possible for the individual contributors to hold the database
>> right, then the individual contributors *should* hold the database
>> right.
>
> That is the position under CT 1.2.

Maybe technically, but it's rather useless without a license on
everyone else's portion of the database, for which we are all, under
the CT 1.2, dependent upon OSMF to grant, and under which the OSMF
only promises (if anything at all) to grant under some "free and open"
license which was agreed to by 2/3rds of active contributors.

And considering that the very first license OSMF intends to use, the
ODbL, isn't even one that I'd consider "free and open" (due to its
restrictions on the use of factual information), that's not acceptable
to me.



More information about the legal-talk mailing list