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

[Jo]

It's almost impossible to quit this list, we're very inclusive. Or maybe
not, just like any other mailing list, there are some links at the bottom
of each email. One of them has listinfo in the url. Click on it and you'll
get magically redirected to a web page where you can unsubscribe.

Cheers,

Jo

2016-03-14 18:23 GMT+01:00 James Tabor <james at dataforwards.com>:

> If someone could remove me from the email list that would be great. Could
> not find an unsub button.
>
> Many thanks
>
> James
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On 14 Mar 2016, at 15:20, Tom Lee <tlee at mapbox.com> wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e00d6e93/attachment.html>