On Sat, 02 Oct 2010 17:48:39 +0200, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/02/2010 03:43 PM, Ed Avis wrote: >> This is pretty clear, then: OSM also needs to be usable on Serbian territory, >> so it can't use the maps. > > Right... and OSM needs to be usable in India too, so it must show > Kashmir as belonging to India as it would otherwise be illegal. And of > course OSM must be usable in Pakistan so it must show Kashmir as > disputed territory otherwise it would be illegal. And in China of > course, we must only include mapping that as been supervised by local > goverments and done by mappers who are approved by central government. > And as for N Korea, we should probably delete that altogether. > > I'm not taking sides in the issue at hand; I just want to point out that > "strict adherence to every national law in every country" is not out no. > #1 priority, or even achievable at all. In all likelihood, OSM does and > always will violate laws in some countries; we have to make a sensible > choice about which laws we want to violate and where.
That might be (even if the whole ODbL move seems to be speaking otherwise, but let's not try to pull *that* one in the discussion); but even if it is so, going against Berne convention does not seem like the most sensible choice to me (as quite a few countries are signatory to that one). -- Opinions above are GNU-copylefted. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
