[OSM-legal-talk] Why is the data protected?

[Andreas Perstinger]

On 2010-11-28 22:06, Rob Myers wrote:
> If you're Australian (or ever likely to visit Australia, or ever likely
> to need a map of it for any reason) then losing Australian data *is* a
> problem.

Yes you're right. I didn't mean it deprecative.
>
> The Ordnance Survey in the UK (where I live), one of the major European
> imports, and several smaller but nonetheless important imports have been
> identified as possibly also being problems.

Ok, that's new for me.

>> Would you argue that every user also donates a kind of database although
>> he always adds just some parts?
>
> This is a legal question rather than a conceptual one. And I am not a
> lawyer.
>
> But probably not. ;-)

I know that most of us aren't lawyers (and probably would like to keep 
them out of our work :-), but I'm just interested in the opinions and 
interpretations and try to understand them if they are not familiar to 
me :-).

> OSM(F) and the LWG are working very hard to Do The Right Thing with the
> licence transition. If that means a slower process and if it means that
> it has to be explained to more people who have concerns (or, in a
> minority of cases, agendas) I think those are prices worth paying.

Don't understand me wrong (english isn't my first language). I'm really 
convinced that the OSM(F) and especially the LWG do their best. I just 
think that its a hard case and I don't think there is a "one size fits 
all" answer.
I personally am of the opinion that we build a database of facts and 
therefore my data is PD. I also think that a non-PD database like ours 
where any body from anywhere can edit anything is not really workable 
(I'm more or less of the opinion of sciencecommons.org - 
http://sciencecommons.org/resources/faq/database-protocol/).
But I respect the concerns of all the others and won't take side for anyone.
My questions are really just because I'm curious and not intended to 
start any new flamewar.

Bye, Andreas