[OSM-legal-talk] The Copyright of Split Ways
flukas.robot+osm at gmail.com
Mon Jan 30 22:30:51 GMT 2012
This discussion seems to be based on the assumption that being
original creator of certain object in database constitutes copyright.
That is not entirely true.
If I move each of the nodes of a way, the original creator can hardly
have any copyright in its shape. Even if I move a single node, that
section is not a creation of the original node's creator any more.
The same is true for tags.
2012/1/30 Richard Fairhurst <richard at systemed.net>:
> 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.
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
More information about the legal-talk