[OSM-talk] How is there not any creative-type (US) copyright in OSM data?

[Anthony]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:28 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar <seav80 at gmail.com>wrote:

> Well, unless you specify an accuracy tolerance level AND the number of
> nodes for each geographical feature. But then, the selection of both metrics
> for each geographical feature can still be considered a creative selection
> since they will be both arbitrary.
>

I don't think it makes sense to argue this further.  Perhaps the selection
of which nodes to include and which nodes not to include can be considered
to "display some minimal level of creativity".  On the other hand, perhaps
it could be successfully argued that "the creative spark is utterly lacking
or so trivial as to be virtually nonexistent".  I really don't know.

And I don't think it particularly matters.  I agree with your basic premise,
that there probably is a (very) thin copyright in the OSM database.  And in
that sense I think I have to disagree with both the OSMF and Creative
Commons that CC-BY-SA is wholly inapplicable to the OSM database.  It's nice
to have CC-BY-SA to fall back on, rather than engaging in a long legal
battle over exactly how sparky the plaintiff's creative sparks were.  To me,
CC-BY-SA says "this database might be copyrighted - if it is, to the extent
it is, we allow you do X anyway, so long as you also do Y".

For that, I'd prefer CC0, or maybe CC-BY, as a statement that "this database
might be copyrighted - if it is, to the extent it is, we allow you to do X
anyway [so long as you tell people where you got the data from]".

If this database is copyrighted, the copyright is thin.  So thin, that's
it's better to just give it away than to go through all the legal hassle of
trying to "protect" it.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091206/8d301b6b/attachment.html>