Liz wrote: > As you realise, in my jurisdiction, CC-by-SA is a better licence than > ODbL, > as it has been well checked and has government use.
No. It isn't that simple. Two recent, very high-profile judgements in Australia both repudiate the notion that copyright can protect collections of unoriginal facts. These are IceTV vs Nine Network (last year) and Telstra vs Phone Directories (this year). These effectively supersede the 2002 Telstra vs Desktop Marketing Systems judgement which did support sweat-of-the-brow for databases. A licence which only works through copyright (such as CC-BY-SA) will therefore offer little or no protection in Australia, compared to one which also includes a contractual element (such as ODbL). Whether or not the Australian Government took this into account when releasing public information, I have no idea. (Factual data only makes up a small part of their CC-licensed release.) I am, however, sure that any legal case involving infringement of OSM data in Australia would be judged following IceTV vs Nine Network and Telstra vs Phone Directories, rather than following any licence which the legislature might or might not have chosen to apply for its data. > I have not changed my mind, as you still will have changed the licence > by stealth and creep. I have suggested to LWG that the "licence may be changed in the future" clause in CT is withdrawn. That notwithstanding I don't see any widespread intention to change the licence by stealth and creep. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-decision-removing-data-tp5370516p5376400.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
