[OSM-legal-talk] Implementing the licence change

ant antofosm at gmail.com
Sat Jan 21 10:18:36 GMT 2012


On 20.01.2012 00:09, Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> And changing a way's references from ABC to ACB is not a modification at
>> all, because no reference is created and no reference is removed. We
>> cannot say that there was a modification in regard to any of the
>> references.
> No, the (relative) place of the reference in the list of references also
> counts. Changing the node list from 1,2,3 to 3,2,1 is a meaningful change.

The point is that changing the list is a modification to the node 
*list*, not to a single reference. In other words, you can't actually 
distinguish between individual nodes without looking at the list at the 
same time.
... I know this is kind of a quibble, but I think it helps understand 
the criteria for rebuilding measures.
So I think we can agree on this: A change to a way's node list is a 
meaningful change and therefore modifications to it by non-agreers must 
be rolled back.

>> Above all, we must not forget to consider whether the creation or
>> modification of a single reference, a single role - i.e. anything we say
>> to be atomic - can possibly constitute a creative work.
> Some people have called for summarily force-relicensing the contribution
> of anyone who has added less than a certain amount of data.

That's out of the question for me.

> Problem is, we're starting to get into the database realm. If you take
> the latest Harry Potter novel then no single word in it is
> copyrightable. But the combination of a significant portion of words is.
> Our fine-grained approach (i.e. "let's simply try not to use *any* word
> from Harry Potter, that way we're sure that we won't infringe
> copyright") might be erring on the side of caution, but I'd prefer that
> over non-agreers raising a fuss after the license change because they
> spot something in there that isn't clean.

I understand. I was not intending to reason like "a single reference is 
not protectable, so the node list isn't either". Rather I'm trying to 
consolidate a basis for argument - e.g., as I have pointed out above, I 
prefer not to argue based on single references.


More information about the legal-talk mailing list