On 8 April 2011 16:33, John Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Which was decided in February... > > http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/336231/court_upholds_right_copy_lucrative_databases/
John - if you are going to argue this, please check your references more carefully. You give a reference from February 2010, reporting on the original Federal Court hearing. I gave you a reference from January 2011, describing the High Court leave for appeal request. Your reference predates mine by a year. The appeal hadn't even been discussed in February 2010. Get with the program. > Why confuse the issue, my point was simple, people haven't been > allowed to make an informed decision regarding the license change ... Despite your attempts to sidetrack this discussion from the your data import to some wider OSM licencing issue, I won't be sidetracked here. You have said you consider the facts of your data import to be substantially similar to the Sensis case. Well one of the largest companies in Australia (but smaller than BP) continues legal action with expensive lawyers in the High Court in atttempt to prevent that data being used. You consider that you are correct in law. You might be, or you might not. Obviously some corporates with serious clout think you might not be. I don't think pushing OSM to the legal bleeding edge is the right thing to do. Owner's informed consent or compatible licence, or reject the data. If you still consider importing this data without permission was in the best interest of the project, I'm afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree. Others can make up their own mind. Thanks, Ian. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
