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

[John Smith]

Friverlous lawsuits can and have been used to bankrupt competition and
you only have to look at sco v linux to see how far they can go

On 06/01/2010, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> 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.
>