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

[Aun Johnsen]

But I ask if it is valid for OSM or not, I know SCO vs * was extreme,
but that doesn't mean it is valid for us. Can you point on some
similarities in evidence, cercumstances, factors that can make this a
valid case? If not it is the same as Larry Flynt vs America or most
lawsuits.

On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 1:19 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please reread what I wrote, the sco v world was an exame of how far a
> frivoulus lawsuit can go
>
> On 06/01/2010, Aun Johnsen <lists at gimnechiske.org> wrote:
>> groklaw.net - I subscribed to their newletter during the hottest part
>> of the lawsuit. Wasn't just SCO vs Linux, was more SCO vs Linux vs IBM
>> vs everybody else. And where did everything start? In a piece of
>> source code if I remember right. Something in the Linux kernel
>> supposedly came from a piece of copyrighted code bought by SCO from
>> IBM.
>>
>> So if that applies here, the street names somebody copies from Google
>> can become the property of xxxx and xxxx opens lawsuite against OSM
>> for stealing their work? I believe SCO had some form of evidence other
>> than "word on the street", don't know if such claims about street
>> names can be proved in the same way though.
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:25 AM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> talk mailing list
>>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> talk mailing list
>> talk at openstreetmap.org
>> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>>
>