On Sun, Mar 22, 2009 at 12:39:01AM +0100, Frederik Ramm wrote: > What I wanted to say was that, to a certain degree, *any* certainty is > better than a random assortment of "may", "might", "the project > consensus seems to be that...", "i am not a lawyer but...", "depending > on your jurisdiction", and "depending on the judge's interpreation".
As I said, the terms do need to be more well defined, and defined the same for everyone rather than relying solely on definitions in different laws. It’s an unfortunate fact that the licence will have a different interpretation over the world whatever we do, but we can at least try to solve the issues that we see rather than just giving up. > I would very much like to avoid a situation in which an > uncertainty in the interpretation of the license makes user A refrain > from doing something (because he thinks it "might" be against the > license) whereas user B brazenly does the same thing and gains some kind > of advantage by doing it, and then A starts complaining to us. Definitions of a Derived Database, Collective Database, Produced Work and others are things we can make more clear to avoid uncertainty. “Depending on jurisdiction” differences will be unavoidable. The best we can do is make it clear what is intended. It does come back to my comment about enforcing rights if they exist: If there are fewer or no copyright like rights in a jurisdiction, then everyone in that jurisdiction is playing on the same pitch, and I feel they have more freedom anyway. If there are rights, we enforce them to keep the data free in a jurisdicition that would allow another to keep data proprietary. Simon -- A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a simple system that works.—John Gall
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
