blank ----- Original Message ----- From: "Tom Hughes" <t...@compton.nu> To: "David Groom" <revi...@pacific-rim.net>; "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-t...@openstreetmap.org> Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2009 12:50 PM Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Further Concerns about ODbL
> > David Groom wrote: > >> My current concerns are very specific, and hopefully may simply be down >> to my misreading of the licence, but: >> >> Section 2.2(a) states "The copyright licensed includes any individual >> elements of the Database, but does not cover the copyright over the Data >> independent of this Database." The copyrighting of the data is covered >> by Section 2.2(b) and here states "Database Rights only extend to the >> Extraction and Re-utilisation of the whole or a Substantial part of the >> Data". >> >> I have real problems with the use of the word "Substantial ". From my >> interoperation it would appear that extraction and subsequent use of any >> amount of data which is deemed to be "insubstantial" is effectively free >> of any copyright or database rights. > > I suspect the reason for the use of that phrase springs directly from the > EU concept of database right, which is limited in that it only applies to > a "substantial" extract of a database. > In which case I would suggest that the OSM database be stored in a country which is not subject to the database law, and that the "substantial" clause in the ODbl license be reworked. > So database right doesn't apply to extracts which are not substantial and > can't be used to protect them. > > Substantial in that sense is not limited to a pure percentage type of > consideration though - taking 2.25% that happened to be an entire country, > or all the motorways in the world, might be substantial while take 2.25% > of nodes at random might not. I have a problem with "might", isn't the whole issue of moving to a new license supposed to do away with the "you might be allowed to do this with our data, and then again you might not" problem? Yeas I realise all laws are subject to interpretation, and in the UK at least the statute law is backed up with case law, but to start with a license which is so open to problems doesn't seem a great step forward. David > > Tom > > -- > Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) > http://www.compton.nu/ > > _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
