On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:43 PM, Matt Amos <zerebub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 10:30 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On 10 August 2010 07:25, Matt Amos <zerebub...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> they do. and it's in the contributor terms: "ODbL 1.0 for the database > >> and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database". the > >> database is attribution and share-alike. the contents, as facts, hold > >> no copyright - so copyright law can't be used to enforce attribution > > > > But the contents aren't just facts, especially when it comes to > > subjective tags like smoothness... > > it's great that you think that, but many lawyers think otherwise. in > any case, they'll be just facts if someone strips the smoothness tags > out. > > Lawyers can think what they like, it's the judges that make the decisions. While pure facts have been judged not to be copyrightable, it requires only a tiny amount of creativity to permit them to become copyrightable. Most of the cases you are probably familiar with involve simple lists of telephone numbers and subscribers. The moment you add even the slightest originality to a collection of facts then it become eligible for copyright. Matt, you really do need to read up on case law about the minimum threshold for copyrightability. 80n > wouldn't you prefer to protect the *whole* database? > > i'm not saying this for your benefit, by the way. it seems pretty > obvious you've made up your mind and aren't going to change it in the > face of reasoned argument or factual counterpoint. > > cheers, > > matt > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
