deliberately Offlist
2012/10/30 Michael Collinson <[email protected]>: > No loop hole. Unless I am missing something earlier in the thread, this is > covering very old ground. This is the LWG understanding: The buzz phrase > is "layered copyright". Using an open licensed photo of a MacDonald's > restaurant does not give one the right to use MacDonald's logo. In our > world, the classic case is the SVG file. The publisher can publish it as a > Produced Work if the intent is to show a pretty picture but if someone then > comes along and tries to extract and re-constitute OSM data from it, then > OSM copyright applies to them. deliberately Offlist Mike, thank you for this statement I am glad to read this and I really hope it is like this. The intentions should be associated to the use and not to the producer of the work (i.e. like you wrote above and not like I read it here: http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline ). Someone could produce a SVG with the intent to show a pretty picture (i.e. not intended for the extraction of data and thus clearly a produced work), but who then comes along and uses it with different intentions (data extraction) must not do it, because in this case the same work turned automagically into a database. (That's why it is important that every produced work has strings attached, (c) for the data OSM contributors, ODbL1.0, which fortunately is part of the current guidelines) Part of my worries rise from the fact, that it seems there once was an anti-reengineering clause in the ODbL which was then removed to obtain compatibility with cc-by-sa and other share-alike licenses. Isn't this an indication that re-engineering is allowed? I mean, why else would it have been removed? (argueing from an offenders point of view). cheers, Martin _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
