On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:18 PM, David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net> wrote:
> 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. This would not whelp users of copies of OSM imported to countries covered by the database law, though. > 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. The point is to get a licence that works at all (!). And law being how it is (as Steve eloquently mentioned), the licence simply cannot avoid ambiguity where there is ambiguity in law. - Rob. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
