Am 21.01.2017 um 22:42 schrieb Tobias Wendorff:
> ...
> Is it enough to get a permission to distribute it under ODbL? Wouldn't
> it also be needed to have a permission for DbCL? The DbCL states that
> the stored components don't have a foreign copyright. So contracts, which
> tell us "you can distribute under ODbL only" wouldn't be valid for DbCl,
> which is part of OpenStreetMap's use of ODbL (facts are free etc.).
> ...

I believe we (OSM) are taking the position that individual (geo-)facts
are not protected by copyright and that they can only have protection as
part of a database or a collection. I suspect anybody claiming something
else would have a bit of an uphill battle essentially everywhere.
Naturally we've been through all the arguments that tracing an object
could have a creative element etc etc etc, but in the case of tracing
from imagery any such rights, if they exist, would clearly be owned by
the OSM contributor, not the provider of the imagery.

The ODbL is a bit more general and needs to allow for situations in
which the individual elements of a database -do- have an individual
creative element that needs to be licensed, for example photographs and

In any case, getting permission to distribute on ODbL terms only would
seem to be suboptimal and endangers any contributions based on so
licensed material as any license change, even in name only, would cause
issues that require going back to the licensor.


Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

legal-talk mailing list

Reply via email to