On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 1:07 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
> 80n, > > > 80n wrote: > >> Dave Hanson relicensed the TIGER data under CC-BY-SA when he contributed >> it to OSM. If you received it from him you have to comply with his license >> terms. >> > > Just to be clear again, we're only using Dave as an example here; the real > Dave Hansen has already agreed to the contributor terms so we're not > worrying about him. > > Understood. I was using Dave as an example in the same spirit. > Generally, CC-BY-SA is a license based on copyright. I can only license > something CC-BY-SA if I have a copyright in the first place. Since I do not > automatically have a copyright on everything I touch, I'm afraid things are > not as easy as you make it sound. > > If I cut and paste a page of a Shakespeare play and put it on my web page, > and write "CC-BY-SA 2.0" below it, that's null and void. Copying a page of > text doesn't give me a copyright on it, and where I don't have a copyright I > cannot license it CC-BY-SA. (I can perhaps say it but it isn't legally > binding.) > > If I download a TIGER file from the US government and mirror it on my web > site, I cannot claim copyright or relicense it. Anyone who receives that > data through me can do whatever he pleases with it, just as he can if he > downloads the file from the government. > > The question is, how much do I have to do with that file before I can > legally (or, if someone fancies going into that, morally) claim a copyright. > What if I convert line endings or use an automated process to convert from > one character set to another - does that give rise to copyright? Or is it > too trivial an action? > > What if the action I do on the file is highly complex (such as converting > from a shape file to OSM format or compiling from C source code to binary), > but the action is done by a program where my only input is pressing a button > and naming a file? Does copyright then lie with the author of the complex > program, or is actually pushing the button on the software in this case > non-trivial enough to warrant copyright? If the author of the complex program made that available (under GPL or whatever) then you can just press the button again. If they didn't share the program with you then you have some code to write. You can't just argue that you *could* have written the code if you wanted to, and so take the output anyway. Doing the right thing is often a matter of understanding the spirit of the law, not trying to twist the letter of the law. Certainly when it comes to OSM contributions this should be the prevailing attitude. > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
