Hi, Gervase Markham wrote: > On 13/05/09 14:23, Frederik Ramm wrote: >> Sounds like: "We have a honest desire to sue the shit out of you if you >> violate any of our 52 random rules but we will grudgingly refrain from >> doing so if laws in your jurisdiction should have the nerve of being >> against us." ;-) > > That's only if the rest of the licence sounds like "We have a honest > desire to sue the shit out of you if you violate any of our 52 random > rules". And if you think that, then your problem would not be with the > fair use clause.
I don't know if we are perhaps talking about different things. A "fair use" clause typically makes an exemption where you know you have a copyright, whereas I was talking about us not knowing whether we have one. I said that I find it questionable to assert copyright where you are not sure that you have copyrightable material in the first place; to which you replied with your fair use example, which, it occurs to me now, seems to be something entirely different. A fair use clause says "I have copyright but your jurisdiction might allow you to do certain things nevertheless, and I think I'll have to accept that." A fair use clause is FUD if it is unclear whether or not you have a copyright at all, because it suggests that unless covered by fair use rights, the user of your data has to play by your rules. Bye Frederik _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
