On 1 Mar 2009, at 21:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: > Hi, > > Peter Miller wrote: >> I think these Use Cases are going to end up being twins of an >> eventual >> FAQ that I imagine will exist. > > I am starting to think that perhaps the license should be > accompanied by > a kind of "interpretation document" which may or may not be the same > as > this FAQ. > > There are probably things that the license will never specify exactly, > like the question of "where in this chain does that database cease to > exist". As stated numerous times on this list, applying the EU > definition of "database", even a PNG tile is a database... > > So if we'd have a document clarifying these things for OSM - even if > this might not be legally binding but just an expression of intent - > that would be a much better basis for the individual mapper to > actually > say yes.
I agree. The license is the License, and that is by necessity written in legal language. If we use the Use Case page to describe common real life situations and then get the lawyers in the end to give their verdict on them it will form a very useful bridge between the practical and the legal. It will also mean that most people will be able to see 'their' use listed with a bit 'yes' next to it which will be reassuring, Peter > > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" > E008°23'33" > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
