[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?

[Heiko Jacobs]

John Smith schrieb:
> On 17 July 2010 18:34, Heiko Jacobs <heiko.jacobs at gmx.de> wrote:
>> I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also
>> the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ...
> 
> No, someone was claiming cc-by licenses we're valid in Australia, as a
> reason to change to ODBL, if that is the case why did both the federal
> and state governments of Australia release data under cc-by if it was
> so weak.

Did I misunderstood the posting below because of not perfect english?

Liz schrieb:
 > On Sat, 17 Jul 2010, Rob Myers wrote:
 >>> Science Commons seem to think copyright doesn't apply to databases,
 >> In the US.
 >>
 >>> OKFN
 >>> seem to think it might.
 >
 > After a recent High Court decision, in Australia copyright is not applicable
 > to databases. Maps were not included in the Court decision, but a database was
 > the subject of the case.
 > The contract part of ODbL may not have any force either in Australia. That
 > would need court hearings to determine.
 > Against - It is presented as a shrink wrap licence with no opportunity to
 > negotiate terms
 > 	- The entity representing the data does not 'own' the data and it could
 > be argued has no right to be a party to a contract over the data