On 11/28/2010 08:53 PM, Andreas Perstinger wrote:
On 2010-11-28 21:29, Rob Myers wrote:
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.
Ok, but it seems that these aren't a big problem (except
Nearmap/Australia - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Import/Catalogue).
If you're Australian (or ever likely to visit Australia, or ever likely
to need a map of it for any reason) then losing Australian data *is* a
problem.
The Ordnance Survey in the UK (where I live), one of the major European
imports, and several smaller but nonetheless important imports have been
identified as possibly also being problems.
Would you argue that every user also donates a kind of database although
he always adds just some parts?
This is a legal question rather than a conceptual one. And I am not a
lawyer.
But probably not. ;-)
Well the tags are an important part of the whole. :-)
Yeah, I know :-) But I would argue that even some of them are just facts
(eg name of a street)
Sure. But depending on where you are in the world if you arrange them,
or include them in some larger structure, the law gets in the way of the
concept of "facts" in vague but threatening ways.
That would alienate people and could lead to legal action.
Either would be a sufficient reason not to do it.
I'm with you. I just want to know what legal actions were possible. That
doesn't mean I want to fight this fight :-)
Legal action doesn't have to be likely to succeed in order for it to
greatly inconvenience OSM.
OSM(F) and the LWG are working very hard to Do The Right Thing with the
licence transition. If that means a slower process and if it means that
it has to be explained to more people who have concerns (or, in a
minority of cases, agendas) I think those are prices worth paying.
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
