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 similar. 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. Simon
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
