Fwd: [OSM-talk] BSD/CC-by/LGPL vs. SharedAlike - decide now and forever
lars at aronsson.se
Wed Mar 22 08:41:43 GMT 2006
Andy Robinson wrote:
> If on the otherhand the OS decided to use OSM data as its
> new-detail layer, and then charge us for its maps under its
> traditional licence, then may be we would have something to say
> about it ;-)
Yes, exactly what would we say about that? How would we say it?
Should we hire lawyers or should we speak ourselves? Because this
is going to happen. The CC licenses are based on copyright, but I
don't think we can claim full copyright to GPX files and data
lists of nodes and lines. At most we can claim "catalogue
rights", which expire after 15 years. When we are 12 years into
the project (2016), a violator can snatch our files and claim he
did so at our beginning. That could mean we would have to prove
that we didn't publish those data before a certain date. Then all
he has to do is delay the legal process until the expiration date.
If it is unrealistic for us to defend our rights and enforce the
license, then perhaps we should just go for the public domain.
Over at runeberg.org (and gutenberg.org) people are scanning and
proofreading old books. The fruit of their voluntary work goes
straight into the public domain, where the books already belong.
There is no legal foundation for applying any CC license and
nobody is trying to find a way to do so. I don't think the lack
of a viral or Share-Alike license turns anybody off.
Lars Aronsson (lars at aronsson.se)
Aronsson Datateknik - http://aronsson.se
More information about the talk