I think this conversation is suffering from a few confusions. First, the EU Database Right and copyright are related but distinct. One or both can apply to a work. From the ODbL: "Database Rights can apply even when there is no copyright over the Database." German copyright's notion of "fading" is interesting but as far as I know the primary documents of OSM are built exclusively on EU and UK law (I could easily be mistaken about this!).
Second, the project license is a grant of rights *beyond* the rights automatically conveyed by the Database Right and copyright. Judgments about the status of different classes of work may affect the limits of which rights OSM can reserve, but they will generally not affect what rights it is able to grant to users (or the terminology it selects for various concepts). With all of that said, I think there's plenty of room for creating useful guidelines on how to interpret the ODbL, so I would welcome the clarifications that others have called for. But I tend to agree with others on this thread that this ruling doesn't substantially change the legal environment surrounding OSM licensing. On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 9:37 AM, Tobias Wendorff < tobias.wendo...@tu-dortmund.de> wrote: > Am So, 13.03.2016, 14:07 schrieb Martin Koppenhoefer: > > > > shouldn't this go further and include cases where the published result > > wasn't intended for the extraction of the original (or derived) data, but > > it was used to do it? > > I don't think you can permit extraction of the data, since that's the > principe of share-alike? > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
