[OSM-talk] Frederik declares war on data imports...

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

John Smith wrote:
>> Because it is irrelevant given that the Database as a whole is protected,
>> rather than the individual pieces it contains which, as you correctly state,
>> are largely unprotectable anway?

> Largely isn't completely, which means you are suggesting that if there
> is any copyright it be removed, which is relevant because then that
> data becomes PD like Anthony suggested.

I think it has been repeated countless times already, and it is funny to 
see how both you and Anthony seem to ignore that.

Copyright protection of facts is patchy at best. It depends very much on 
how much art you have put into your facts, and in what country you live. 
John and Liz in Australia say that CC-BY(-SA) works for geodata in 
Australia, meaning that facts can be copyrighted. Several Australian 
judges seem to think otherwise but let's assume it were so. Anthony in 
the US says that CC-BY(-SA) is more or less equivalent to PD when 
applied to geodata in the US, i.e. CC-BY(-SA) doesn't work as supposed 
(and that's why he likes it - he perceives ODbL as restricting some 
options he thinks he has under CC-BY-SA).

Any license that tries to use this patchy copyright protection of data 
is bound to be unfair at the very least, and more likely a pain the 
behind of anybody who wants to use it. The legality of OSM use cases 
would depend on whether you execute a project from your Australian or 
American office. We might be divided on some issues but *that* can 
surely not be our aim.

That's why ODbL protects the *collection* as a whole, rather than 
individual bits of data. The individual bits might already be PD in your 
jurisdiction or they might become effectively PD but ODbL is constructed 
in a way that this does not matter; and indeed (since un-protectability 
of factual database contents is a given in some jurisdictions) this is 
the only sane way of dealing with the situation.

That's what is meant by "irrelevant" - ODbL works independently of 
whether or not you could theoretically protect individual facts in your 
jurisdiction.

Fortunately most people seem to grasp the concept but I've here made an 
effort to present it, again, in simple terms to increase the number of 
those who do.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"