[OSM-legal-talk] ECJ confirmed 96/9/EG for printed maps

[Tom Lee]

I think this conversation is suffering from a few confusions.

First, the EU Database Right and copyright are related but distinct. One or
both can apply to a work. From the ODbL: "Database Rights can apply even
when there is no copyright over the Database." German copyright's notion of
"fading" is interesting but as far as I know the primary documents of OSM
are built exclusively on EU and UK law (I could easily be mistaken about
this!).

Second, the project license is a grant of rights *beyond* the rights
automatically conveyed by the Database Right and copyright.  Judgments
about the status of different classes of work may affect the limits of
which rights OSM can reserve, but they will generally not affect what
rights it is able to grant to users (or the terminology it selects for
various concepts).

With all of that said, I think there's plenty of room for creating useful
guidelines on how to interpret the ODbL, so I would welcome the
clarifications that others have called for. But I tend to agree with others
on this thread that this ruling doesn't substantially change the legal
environment surrounding OSM licensing.

On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Tobias Wendorff <
tobias.wendorff at tu-dortmund.de> wrote:

> Am So, 13.03.2016, 14:07 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer:
> >
> > shouldn't this go further and include cases where the published result
> > wasn't intended for the extraction of the original (or derived) data, but
> > it was used to do it?
>
> I don't think you can permit extraction of the data, since that's the
> principe of share-alike?
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20160314/0f444736/attachment.html>