deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com
Tue Feb 9 01:47:26 GMT 2010
On 9 February 2010 11:10, David Murn <davey at incanberra.com.au> wrote:
> Oh, thanks for that. I didnt realise that OSM had moved to Australia,
> and was now governed by Australian law.
<insert rehashed argument over ODBL>
They haven't but copyright laws don't just apply to OSM, but also the
jurisdiction you are obtaining the information from etc etc etc.
> If there were any court rulings that changed our right to access/use
> other peoples content, theres a lot better things to import than
> woolworths locations, say for example copyrighted street centrelines.
Do you have a source for such data? Although if you did you would
likely be under either an employment or other contract preventing you
from releasing such information.
Any rendered images are likely to be considered creative works and
still apply, but vector data depending on what it is probably isn't.
> Also what is this 'IceTV ruling'? I provide you with an opinion and
> details of why its so, you just say 'since XYZ ruling'.
Sorry I thought it was common knowledge on this list, there was a 3
year running legal battle between Channel Nine and IceTV over tv
listings and times:
> What if theyve put an easter-egg into that 'database of fact'? Suddenly
> they can prove you took their entire dataset.
There is precedents in the US over this, not sure how it'd apply here,
but they can't claim copyright in the US over mistakes intentional or
> Another concern I have, is that if the law works one way, whats to stop
> someone deriving a list of info from OSM, then adding it to their
This is why people within OSM want to move to ODBL, not because of
precedents in Australian law, but because of precedents in US laws.
Instead of trying to protect OSM data with just copyright they want to
shift to copyright law + contract law + database law.
More information about the Talk-au