[OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Simon Poole]

Am 21.12.2011 13:34, schrieb Ed Avis:
> Simon Poole<simon at ...>  writes:
>
>> If somebody is improving the geometry of a way because he is
>> interpolating from the available information (may that be GPS traces of
>> other ways) then he is doing exactly that,
> That is exactly it: "improving" the geometry of a way.  Not replacing it.
> If you take an existing street and adjust its position it is hard to argue
> that you have taken a completely clean-room approach to doing so, not using
> the existing geometry at all.  The existing geometry is there on your screen
> while you are editing!

If you take an existing tainted way and move it they way is still going 
to go, so what is your point again?

>> Now if you wish to state that interpolation itself creates a derived
>> work, please argue that.
> By interpolation I was referring to the practice of taking two paths (be they
> two GPS traces, one GPS trace and one existing way on the map, a way on the map
> and a path visible in an aerial photograph, etc) and combining them to make a
> new path which is roughly halfway between the two.  For example if mapping from
> GPS plus an existing out-of-copyright map you may trace a way which is about
> halfway between your GPS trace and what you see on the old map - since neither
> of them by itself is entirely accurate.  Doing this makes the new path derived
> from both the old one and the new one.
>
You are using derived in a common language sense, please argue why this 
is a derived work in the IP/legal sense (choose any jurisdiction you 
would like).

Simon