2009/5/5 Lauri Hahne <lauri.ha...@gmail.com>: > I think the problem here is that our own definition of substantial is > by no means binding. The definition of substantial in ODbL comes > pretty straight from EU's database directive and the definition is > ultimately up to courts to decide. >
I'm reluctant to poke my nose in since I'm only recently on this mailing list and there's lots of history, but its not quite as simple as that. If you try to sue someone for infringement of a database right then - whatever the licence might say - if the court finds they have not infringed then that is that. So far so good. But I understood that the ODbL is intended for situations where the sui generis database right may not apply (or something analogous) and where it may be possible to impose a duty via contract. If that is the case, then the contractual liability is something quite separate and would be determined by construing the contract (i.e. the licence in this case which I understand has a dual nature if your jurisdiction believes that licences can be things that are different from contracts as mine does). In that case there is no harm in putting a definition in. Furthermore, if the licence permits copying where the database right would not (in other words of the courts decide that our definition is narrower than that of the directive) then that *is* useful because it means that a user of the data can rely on our definition as giving permission without worrying about what the precise extent of the case law (which might shift) might be. I hope that makes sense. -- Francis Davey _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
