On 23 November 2010 11:33, 80n <80n...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Indeed, using something that is so novel and untested as ODbL to license > OSM's work is foolish. Especially given that copyright as applied to maps > is well established and have been in use for a couple of hundred years. > > Dear Etienne,
you are correct that copyrights are applied to maps for centuries and I expect it to continue for the coming centuries. On the topic of vectorial database, I believe that we will start seeing more and more people to move towards licenses which are protecting databases like what is happening with Paris (they are choosing ODbL, and they have a large legal team). I suspect as database law usage is expanding, we will see more and more moves towards licence like CC0, ODbL, ODb-BY, etc.... . Recently, someone from Creative Common posted that they are closely looking at the debate to see how they could improve their licensing to take into account databases. People don't spend time inventing new licences for the sake of it; it corresponds to the need of adapting to a changing legal environment. If I remember correctly, UK have recently excluded databases from copyright protection since 1997 due to the introduction of the European database law ( http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/UK_Database_Law for more information). You can argue that the database containing map data is different from some yellow pages database. I disagree with that statement. I believe that a database (as defined by the link above) of geographical information is not different than a database of information. ODbL may be untested, but so is CC-BY-SA, and so was the GPL until some time ago. The point is that you have to choose what gives you the strongest legal footing in the end, as they are all untested. Amusingly enough, I don't know of any map providers using copyrights to protect their data. Emily Laffray
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
