Hi,
Iván Sánchez Ortega wrote:
> The same goes with the ODbL. Once you make a planet dump and let 15 years
> pass, you can not assert any rights over the dump... so you can not assert
> the ODbL. Simple as that.
Question is: 1. what about the contents themselves. Have we reached a
consensus that the contents of the database are themselves not protected
by copyright and do we explicitly say that we don't claim any copyright?
And 2. you are wrong because ODBL tries exactly that, to assert rights
over the collection even in jurisdictions where there are none, by
invoking the idea of a contract - so where is it written that the
contract, which may well exist in parallel to sui generis rights in
Europe, also terminates after 15 years?
The contributor terms should be able to answer the copyright question
clearly but I'm apalled to see it has grown into a "legal document"
whose foremost purpose is to *not* answer anything clearly or quickly.
I think it is very sad that we can't even talk plaintext among
ourselves, and to the people we are trying to attract to OSM. I'm sorry
but I start getting that funny sensation when I read sentences (the
"Sentences") where every second word (the "Word") is capitalised
("Capitalised") and repeated, and henceforth every capitalised word must
be read with scrutiny and compared to its definition. Then we end up
writing a "human language version" of the document because nobody can be
bothered to read and understand the original, but we still expect them
to sign the original... well I guess that's how these things go.
Well, after that short diatribe - I can't answer the question for sure.
We require from our contributors that they grant OSMF and any recipient
of the data to do anything that would normally be restricted by
copyright; this sounds like we're waiving any potential copyright
protection over the contents themselves. Right?
Bye
Frederik
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
