[OSM-talk] Sourcing street names - what's the policy, and why?

[Anthony]

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Ulf Lamping <ulf.lamping at googlemail.com>wrote:

> Am 05.01.2010 15:17, schrieb Anthony:
> > I certainly don't suggest blatantly breaking the law.  What I suggest is
> > not acting as though there is a law when you have no evidence that there
> is.
> >
> > So far no one has shown me the law that is supposedly being broken.  One
> > brief attempt pointed to EU database law, which 1) hasn't been shown to
> > apply in Australia; and 2) hasn't been shown to apply to all instances
> > of copying anyway.
>
> So we'll end up with a map only being legally usable in Australia.


What makes you think that?


> Fine for you, but not a goal that I have.
>

Nor a goal I have, since I don't live in Australia.

> What we're left with is some sort of vague "Pascal's Wager" type
> > admonishment - "I have absolutely no evidence for my claims, but you
> > have to follow what I say anyway because not doing so would be
> > infinitely bad."  I don't buy that crap.
>
> So unless a mapper was drawn to bancrupt at court, you still won't agree
> that there might be a problem.
>

What makes you think that?

On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:15 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2010/1/6 Anthony <osm at inbox.org>:
> > Really?  Where?  What laws are being suggested to be broken?
>
> Not familiar with frivilous lawsuits?
>

Just don't see that applicability.

> I certainly don't suggest blatantly breaking the law.  What I suggest is
> not
> > acting as though there is a law when you have no evidence that there is.
>
> Not only is there copyright law, in the case of Google and other
> online services there is also contract law.
>

Yes, there is also contract law which no one has shown to apply.  By the
way, in any EU states, any contractual provision which attempts to "prevent
a lawful user of the database from extracting and/or re-utilizing
insubstantial parts of its contents, evaluated qualitatively and/or
quantitatively, for any purposes whatsoever" "is null and void".  I don't
know if Australia has such a provision, though.


> > So far no one has shown me the law that is supposedly being broken.  One
> > brief attempt pointed to EU database law, which 1) hasn't been shown to
> > apply in Australia; and 2) hasn't been shown to apply to all instances of
> > copying anyway.
>
> You mustn't have asked the right questions, see the Telstra ruling.
>

Seems to me there's a difference between copying an entire phone book and
copying a few street names.  I find it hard to believe that anyone who gives
someone else directions after consulting with a map is committing a
copyright violation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20100105/c204b6c6/attachment.html>