Francis Davey <fjmd1a@...> writes: >As I hope I've clarified, I don't think it makes sense to ask whether >something is "considered to be pure 'contents'". The two questions >are: (i) what is covered by the contributor terms (everything >uploaded) and (ii) what does the ODbL licence (the arrangement of >OSMF's database)?
A third question would be (iii) what does the DbCL license? For that reason it is interesting to know what is considered to be 'contents', since a different licence applies to that than to the 'database'. >From a user's point of view, a safe strategy is to assume that 'contents' is empty and that everything in the map is licensed under ODbL. But it's possible that the 'contents', which are covered by the DbCL rather than the ODbL, might be something meaningful. -- Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
