[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] What could we do to make this licences discussion more inclusive?
James Livingston
lists at sunsetutopia.com
Sun Jul 18 05:42:19 BST 2010
On 17/07/2010, at 6:34 PM, Heiko Jacobs wrote:
> Michael Barabanov schrieb:
> > Consider two cases:
> >
> > 1. Current license does not cover the OSM data (I think that's the OSMF
> > view). In this case, OSMF can just change to ODBL without asking anyone.
> > 2. Current license does cover the OSM data. Then there's no need to change.
> >
> > Where's the issue?
It's case (1) in some jurisdictions and case (2) in other jurisdictions. The OSMF can't just relicense because of the places where it is (2), but people can arguable just reuse the data in places where it is (1).
> There are no solution possible.
> Think about history function in case of splitted or joined ways.
> And what about a way, mapped by A with 3 points and highway=path
> and B sets a fourth point in the middle and add surface=... smoothness=...
> Who is the true holder of copyright of the way and first three points?
> And so on ...
Easy, both of them - there doesn't have to be a single copyright holder for a piece of work.
I don't know how to deal with the splitting-merging problem and other similar cases. OSM seems to try to take a "whiter than white" approach to not copying of other sources, so it would seem a bit weird to be more lax with contributor's data. Of course, the only solution that is guarantees to work is to nuke the DB and start again.
> I saw anywhere in the deeps of discussion at legal, that also
> the new licence does not protect data in australia ...? Mmmmh ...
I don't recall that being said, but I could be wrong.
A lot of us Australians posting on the list 1) don't like the ODbL a lot, and 2) wondering about all the CC-BY data we've gotten from the Govetnment.
More information about the legal-talk
mailing list