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

[Brendan Morley]

If "the intent of OSM is to represent the centerline of a road as accurately as possible" (and presumably other land features too) then this is another reason to 
consider dropping the SA requirement - or dual licencing or dual databases or being able to assign a licence per-object.

Australian Government is now quite happy to share using CCBY, but CCBYSA (and OdbL replicas) make it difficult for government to republish (e.g. it shouldn't 
be seen to discriminate against constituents that don't wish to accept the SA stipulation on contributed edits).

And who else but government is in the best position (and has the most self interest) to determine exactly where the road was built?


Brendan


--Original Message Text---
From: Anthony
Date: Sun, 6 Dec 2009 10:26:08 -0500

The intent of OSM is to represent the centerline of a road as accurately as possible.  There aren't an infinite number of possibilities which we creatively choose 
from.  (First of all, the number of possibilities that can be represented is finite, as the number of decimal places is finite.  But more to the point, the purpose is to 
record exactly one result, and any deviation from that is simply an error.)  Mistakes and inaccuracy do not represent creative input.





-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091212/684bf141/attachment.html>