Sebastian Spaeth wrote: >> If they say "but I would really like to do X, if you give me in >> writing that I can do X I'll give you $10.000 and print OSM adverts on >> every GPS I sell", then we still cannot say it because we're not the >> owners of the data. > > In Linux that problem is solved by companies bying their product from > Redhat, including some kind of insurance that RedHat provides. If there > are legal hassles, then Redhat would be sued and RedHat would have to > deal with the 20000 copyright holders and not the end-user (if you are > not SCO and live in a parallel universe).
If we are talking about community norms, then how about looking at those surrounding e.g. GPL enforcement? If a company violates the GPL, you don't find the FSF or anyone else wading in at the first sniff with lawyers and claims for damages. They try very hard to sort things out in private, and usually succeed. If we have a Share Alike licence, what precedent makes companies think that if they mistakenly transgress that OSM contributors will take such immediate drastic action? Without attributing particular motives to anyone, I would make the general point that if a company doesn't want to share, it should come out and say so, rather than argue for PD on the grounds that an SA licence creates more legal uncertainty. Gerv _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
