On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 12:20 PM, Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> wrote: > Matt Amos <zerebub...@...> writes: > >>>I happily support the status quo, where map data is freely available >>>under CC share-alike terms, and I see no evidence of evil mapmakers copying >>>it with impunity. >> >>absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, and so forth > > If someone is taking OSM data and misusing it secretly, then they would > be able to continue doing that whatever licence was chosen. So we only > need to consider cases where a violation becomes publicly known.
my point was more like "there's no evidence yet". just because it hasn't happened doesn't mean it isn't going to happen. >>>Has any lawyer in fact said to you: as things stand, it is quite possible to >>>copy OSM data in the United States, redistribute it under any restrictive >>>licence you want, > >>of course not - lawyers don't talk like that. lawyers have actually >>said to me; "CC BY-SA isn't a strong license for factual data. it >>would be difficult to defend in the US and other jurisdictions where >>copyright doesn't cover factual data." > > While that is a long way from 'yes, you have a straightforward way to sue', > it is also very different from 'no, it's clear that your licence is > unenforceable'. The issue is a shade of grey and the question is just > what shade is enough. lawyers only ever talk in shades of grey, probably because there are no absolutes in the courtroom. i've asked lawyers several times for absolute answers and they always just say "judges can be unpredictable" ;-) >>so, no - no lawyer has ever given me a statement as strongly-worded as >>"i'd advise my clients to take OSM data and re-license it", presumably >>because there is some risk that we could sue in NL or BE or something >>like that. > > Indeed. And isn't that enough deterrent? Are we really up against some > Dr Evil figure with an unlimited legal budget to try every possible way > to make illicit copies of OSM data in some jurisdiction? Dr Evil doesn't need an unlimited legal budget - he just needs to live in a country where non-creative data isn't copyrightable. it's then up to OSMF to bring a case against him in a jurisdiction where he has assets or can be bound by a court ruling. rather than limit this to NL and BE, wouldn't it be better if the license were enforceable in more jurisdictions? > Isn't the reality that no company would ever consider it worth the legal > risk to start appropriating OSM's data, even in the USA? i don't know. i assume most are put off by the risk, but there will be a few who will chance it. CC BY-SA for non-creative data is much, much weaker than GPL for source code and yet several companies have been challenged for violating the GPL. >>on the other hand, from a defensibility point-of-view, OSMF >>can't possibly enforce all its rights in dutch and belgian courts - >>many license violators will have no assets or presence in the EU. > > There is something a bit wrong with this argument, IMHO: the OSM > project does not exist in order to enforce certain rights. It exists > to provide free map data to the world, and enforcing share-alike terms > is a means to that end. We need to enforce just enough of the project's > rights to promote the free availability of maps, not strive to close > down every possible legalistic opening. if we just wanted to give maps away for free then we'd PD it. if we want stronger copyleft than that, then we have to start thinking about enforcing those copylefts. >>if we carry on licensing CC BY-SA we may get to the state where CC >>BY-SA is challenged. if the challenge is in the US, i think there's a >>good chance of OSMF losing, > > Would that be such a disaster? If such a precedent were set, then any > factual data derived from OSM would also be in the public domain in that > country, and could be shared freely and incorporated into the project, > giving just the same result as if CC-BY-SA were in force. PD isn't viral - any factual data derived from OSM might well be protected by other IP rights (e.g: database rights) reserved by the deriver. it would be a problem for those who want to see the data remain copyleft. > Indeed one way > to think about CC-BY-SA (apart from the attribution requirement) is that > it tries to simulate a situation where all content is in the public domain. that's basically the same thing as saying CC BY-SA tries to simulate a situation where CC BY-SA is the only and default license for everything. additionally, there's the difference between what CC BY-SA requires you to share and what ODbL requires you to share. sure, CC BY-SA might keep the tiles in the "free domain", but it doesn't keep the data in the free domain. ODbL flips that, allowing cartographers to keep the "style copyrights" in their own maps, but requiring that the data remain in the "free domain". this, in my opinion, is a vast improvement over CC BY-SA. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
