[OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways

Richard Fairhurst richard at systemed.net
Mon Jan 30 14:21:02 GMT 2012

andrzej zaborowski wrote:
> (I thought it is i->i+j, at least in JOSM it was up to some point)

It is. But it's very difficult to extract that with certainty from a
non-trivial changeset. Add enough splits, and you may find i->i+j+k+l. Then
add some merges and some deletes, and you possibly have [p+i]+j and [l+p]
and an odd isolated section of k.

Probably the only case in which you can actually check whether the user was
splitting, or creating afresh but using some of the same (agreeing) nodes,
is if they were using Potlatch 1's live mode. And I don't think that's been
good practice for a while. ;)

> In any case if a way is an arrangement of node references + some 
> tags, then if inside some changeset an arrangement of nodes and/
> or tags is reused, as in your example, then, even if the editor's 
> "split" operation wasn't used to arrive at it, for practical purposes 
> the effects is the same.

Practical purposes, sure, but not IP purposes. If we're saying that there is
IP in the sweat-of-the-brow required to create those tags or that
arrangement of nodes, then we need to know whose brow was sweaty. 


View this message in context: http://gis.19327.n5.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-The-Copyright-of-Split-Ways-tp5438685p5441546.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.

More information about the legal-talk mailing list