On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 20:13:02 +1000, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 19 July 2010 20:07, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote: >> My source for the fact that creativity is not being relied on is the fact >> that the ODbL doesn't rely on it and the ODbL is the currently proposed >> replacement licence. > > It's my understanding that once someone breaches contract with OSM-F > (or whoever) and say pushes the data via ftp or p2p or ... and the > data is outside Europe where the database directive doesn't apply > isn't the only form of protection still copyright?
This is why the ODbL has the triple whammy of not just relying on database right, copyright or (sigh) contract law but using all three. Where one doesn't apply, hopefully the others will. If copyright and DB right apply, I don't think you can strip them by geographically exporting and importing them. And if someone is breaching the contract, they can hopefully be stopped from doing so. This means that the ODbL covers (c) and (DB) where they apply, and contract law as much as it can. That said I don't think you'd need to export the data geographically in order to break the contract requirement, just leave a planet dump on the bus. :-/ (I am not a lawyer etc.) - Rob. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
