On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> wrote: > I doubt we have to worry about Google, Tele Atlas or Navteq consistently and > deliberately using OSM data under the current licence. For them, it's not > about the law one way or another: it's about reputation risk. No matter if > we have CC-favoured "community norms" on top of a PD waiver, ODbL+CT, or > CC-BY-SA, for these three companies, being seen to "do the wrong thing" in > their key market would be a sufficient disincentive.
Google seemed to have no problem with the reputation risk of violating the copyrights of thousands of book authors. > It's everyone else who we have to worry about. Worry about? What exactly is there to worry about? > In the last couple of months, > I've personally noticed a national railway company, a charity with a > turnover of >£100m, a vast firm of couriers, a magazine publisher, a book > publisher, all infringing our requirements/requests for attribution and > share-alike. (I've spotted these by chance: I don't go out there looking for > this stuff.) Deliberate? In some cases, definitely. You wouldn't put an > entirely fictitious credit to another organisation if you were just innocent > of the niceties. Would a different license change this? If so, why? > No, Google, Tele Atlas and Navteq aren't infringing OSM's licence. Everyone > else is, though. Are they infringing the license, or are they following it in a way that wasn't intended? _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
