On 07/12/2009, at 7:29 PM, John Smith wrote: > 2009/12/7 Liz <ed...@billiau.net>: >> James has been pointing out that the Feds, who can afford good lawyers, find >> CC-by-Sa and CC-by as quite satisfactory in Australia. > > As far as I can gather CC-BY-SA most likely won't work in the US, so I > can only guess that this whole issue is to fix the US problem and a > potential issue with streaming data that has only been shown in theory > and not in any court.
The US isn't the only place without copyright on data. Indeed Australia doesn't have that, it's just we have copyright on databases of non-copyrightable stuff (which isn't at all the same as EU database rights). Most of what I was trying to point out was that 1) CC-BY-SA isn't broken everywhere, and 2) the High Court's IceTV decision (as I understand it) overturns a lot less of Desktop Marketing than most people think. The HC didn't rule on whether factual data is copyrightable, in fact it explicitly said it wasn't ruling on that due to IceTV's lawyers inadvertently telling the court that the TV guide was copyrightable, so precluding the court from having to decide that. What it ruled on was the definition of "substantial" in reference to the copyright of a database. I understand that CC-BY-SA doesn't work for databases of factual data in some jurisdictions (e.g. the US), it's just that I'm not too sure about the ODbL, and think the contributor terms will prevent us from using data that gets released under ODbL, or the stuff our government is now releasing under CC-BY(-SA). _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
