[OSM-legal-talk] feedback requested

[Richard Weait]

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> Yes. I have no strong feelings either way; your argument is correct. However
> the question must be asked in how far you can claim copyright for facts that
> others have to extract from your prose. In my personal opinion, if someone
> wrote a note tag describing in colourful English what it is that he saw, and
> someone else then extracted proper tags from that text, then I'd be prepared
> to ascribe a copyright on the original prosaic note to the mapper but not
> copyright on the interpretation of that note made by someone else.
>
> I'm sure it is an issue that we must watch, and maybe try and prepare a list
> with all cases affected, and make spot checks to get an idea of how many
> false positives/negatives we get.

Concern has been expressed in this thread about wrongfully considering
"clean" what should still be considered "tainted".  Frederik, are your
rules applied symmetrically?  That is, will they also wrongfully
consider objects "tainted" where they should be considered clean?

So if mapper adds nmae=Fred's Bistro, then decliner corrects to
name=Fred's Bistro, do your current rules consider that node tainted?
I presume that the same types of errors can occur in both directions.
Is that correct?