On Jul 19, 2010, at 1:30 PM, Rob Myers wrote: > 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
I like 'triple whammy' but prefer the 'three pillars of government' analogy :-) > 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 > Steve stevecoast.com _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
