[Osmf-talk] New license change proposal status

Elizabeth Dodd edodd at medemail.com.au
Sat Dec 5 11:20:21 UTC 2009

On Sat, 5 Dec 2009, you wrote:
> The Nine Network case, which I presume is the High Court ruling you're
> referring to, only deals with copyright protection. It essentially
> reaches the same conclusion as Rural v Feist in the US; facts are not
> worthy of copyright, and nor is trivial arrangement (TV listings and a
> phone book respectively). ODbL was written in full light of Rural vs
> Feist so should withstand Nine Network v Ice TV just as well.

In particular, in that case, the database was NOT afforded protection. The 
database was deemed to be not worthy of protection.

Very seriously, the quantity of data which we have imported from government 
agencies as CC-by-SA is a substantial quantity of our Australian data.
We are in no position to negotiate for any other licensing arrangement for 
that data. Loss of that data from our sector of the map is going to make it 
look like a blank map - rather like it did 18 months ago.

Seriously, I will not vote for this proposal. 

More information about the osmf-talk mailing list