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

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Tue Aug 10 00:53:28 BST 2010


On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 11:22 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 6:09 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:52 PM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>>>> Can we get a collection of quotes from those lawyers that you say
>>>> "think otherwise"?  Exact quotes of what they said?
>>>
>>> unfortunately not. apparently legal advice can't be publicly shared
>>> without making the lawyers in question liable for it. given that our
>>> legal advisors are acting for us pro-bono and have asked that we don't
>>> quote them publicly, i don't think it would be nice to do that.
>>
>> Then can you at least stop referring to what they said, especially
>> referring to it as though it's in any way authoritative.  Without the
>> ability to see the exact quote, let alone ask questions, "many lawyers
>> said you're wrong" is useless.
>
> i'm simply saying that there are people out there who know what
> they're talking about.

I'm simply saying that I have strong doubts that many of them would
have said that the contents of the OSM are purely factual.
Furthermore, if asked whether or not collections of facts can be
copyrightable, I have strong doubts that many of them would have said
"no".

> some lawyers have gone on the record about ODbL.

That's not equivalent to saying that the content of OSM are purely factual.

>>>> Also an example of licenses which distinguish "the whole database"
>>>> from "the individual contents of the database" would be helpful.  How
>>>> does that make any more sense than releasing a book under "CC-BY-SA,
>>>> for the book, and CC0 for the individual words of the book".
>>>
>>> the ODbL is the only example i know of.
>>
>> That's certainly a reason to be wary of it.
>
> not really. it's on the cutting edge, but that's because we're trying
> to do something that no-one else has done before: an attribution,
> share-alike license for factual data.

You don't think one should be wary of the cutting edge?  If no one
else has done it before, there's probably a reason for that.

[discussion of "individual contents" and DbCL]

Okay.




More information about the talk mailing list