Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Political Change
I agree with the judgment. You can't make a derivative work without permission. OSM and other open source projects give people permission to create derivative works provided they follow the license rules. If they could make derivative works without permission then there would be no way to require compliance with the license. On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 2:39 PM, Liz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: there has been a major win in Australia against the use of derivative works http://vogelross.com.au/vrblog/?p=18 I would like to start political moves to free up this part of the copyright law in Australia. This is possible because we have had a change of government. While I understand political lobbying, I don't understand what law I want changed and exactly why. Can this list assist me with the creation of about 1/3 of a page summary of what we do how we are unsure of our rights to accumulate facts and present them as Free Information the changes required in the law to provide certainty to our work and a longer set of briefing papers that is, something which the experts can read and follow on the above. I have about 4 months before I will be actually in parliament seeing parliamentarians, so I don't expect assistance in a great rush thanks ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk -- http://bowlad.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Political Change
I just read through http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2008/71.html In 128 the appellate court is saying that they did not copy facts, but instead they copied the guide created by Nine, because the aggregatators had pretty much copied the guide created by nine. In 123 Ice is saying that because the aggregators had recompiled the information that what Ice took was individual facts free of copyright. Is this the issue you want addressed in your new law? -- http://bowlad.com ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Political Change
On Sun, 11 May 2008, Jeffrey Martin wrote: I just read through http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2008/71.html In 128 the appellate court is saying that they did not copy facts, but instead they copied the guide created by Nine, because the aggregatators had pretty much copied the guide created by nine. In 123 Ice is saying that because the aggregators had recompiled the information that what Ice took was individual facts free of copyright. Is this the issue you want addressed in your new law? yes, if that was the state of the law, that collecting individual facts into a new database was Ok with the law, that would see OSM data secure where it has been collected in accordance with the existing rules. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Political Change
Jeffrey Martin wrote: Some lists want me to answer on the top and some on the bottom. Is this a bottom answer email list? Most email lists will accept the style where you answer below the thing you are commenting on, but trim it well so people don't have to page past loads of verbiage to get to it. Like this. Gerv ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
