On 11/28/2010 07:51 PM, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
As I understand it, we build a database which we fill with coordinates
and their tags. Because of the license change some (or most or all?)
A very vocal minority.
are
afraid that we loose data from the users who don't sign the new CT or
don't like the new license.
But why?
One concern some people have is that large datasets donated to or
imported into the project will either be unable to be relicenced or will
take several years to be relicenced.
I would argue that the licences of other projects are their own concern
and that this should not prevent OSM from using the right licence as a
project in its own right.
Isn't the content the users provide just facts (at least the
coordinates, some tags could be questionable)?
Well the tags are an important part of the whole. :-)
It's important to remember that OSM is an international project, and
that the law covering data and databases is much less standardized
internationally than it is for artistic works or software. How much
originality you need in a database in order to claim copyright over it
is an open question in much of the world (including America and
Australia, the two places where people are most adamant that it is
resolved). And then there's the database right.
Here's OKF's guide to the rights that can cover databases internationally:
http://www.opendefinition.org/guide/data/
Why is there a problem to
distribute the database from day x on under the new license regardless
if the users accepted the new CT or not?
That would alienate people and could lead to legal action.
Either would be a sufficient reason not to do it.
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
