P Kishor wrote: >Sent: 07 November 2008 4:15 AM >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [Geowanking] Flickrs WOE stuff > >On 11/6/08, SteveC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> On 6 Nov 2008, at 19:59, P Kishor wrote: >> >> > So, it could be argued that -- "polygons from either OSM or >> > TeleAtlas/NavTeq data; the geocoded photos that were just placed on a >> > map... from the map; the polygons from that set of points.. " -- at >> > each stage, the successive creation is deriving only the location. The >> > location itself is fact and is thus not copyrightable per 17, 102 (b). >> > >> >> No... it's deriving a set of locations, not a single one. > >so, what is the problem with that? Is a set of facts any less factual >than a single fact? >
Or, on the other hand is it "fact" at all, how do we know? If I've been there and seen it I can be sure its fact, otherwise is it? How can I know? That's why OSM likes to use its contributor eyes and create the map from known fact rather than guesswork or some hearsay. Eric suggested in an earlier post to the thread that OSM is "teetering on the possibility of wide-spread corruption". It surely would be if we had everyone copying unreliable data from every other error filled source there is out there. The true facts don't lie, are incorruptible and luckily for us, free :-) Cheers Andy _______________________________________________ Geowanking mailing list [email protected] http://geowanking.org/mailman/listinfo/geowanking_geowanking.org
