[OSM-legal-talk] 'Contents'

[Ed Avis]

Francis Davey <fjmd1a at ...> writes:

>>But it's possible
>>that the 'contents', which are covered by the DbCL rather than the ODbL, might
>>be something meaningful.
> 
>Yes, indeed. And who knows?

If I understand you rightly, you're saying that the 'contents' referred to here
is not meant to be something meaningful in the context of OSM, but rather a
catch-all term for whatever a court might find to be 'database contents' in the
future.

That seems a little bit dangerous since you can reasonably argue that almost
everything in OSM is 'database contents', with the 'database' itself providing
very little.  (Yes, even if you remember the difference between a database and
a database management system.)  Once you start saying that the map can be divided
into 'database' and 'contents', you naturally invite the question of where the
dividing line is.  It might have been better not to muddy the waters in this way
and just say that the whole thing - whether considered by law as database, as
database contents, or anything else - is licensed under the ODbL.

Otherwise (and I realize this is a far-fetched scenario, but no more outlandish
than some of the others thrown about here) we run the risk of someone taking the
whole OSM map data but then arguing in court that what they took is 'database
contents' and therefore they are entitled to use it under the DbCL.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>