On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Steve Bennett <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Ian Sergeant <[email protected]> wrote: >> Australian copyright law recognises that copyright can subsist in >> compilation of facts. Once copyright subsists, the only test is >> "substantial part". > > Ok, for the sake of argument, how would provider A demonstrate that > OSM's data was made by copying its "compilation of facts", when > providers B and C contain exactly the same facts?
For the sake of argument, this has been argued to death on talk@ and legaltalk@ for years. It's a settled matter. Australian copyright law is not relevant[1], it is the globally accepted OSM rule that we do not copy from other maps. We do not copy from any other sources. With the narrow exception of where we have explicit permission. That is the OpenStreetMap way. We don't have to like it, when a local matter MIGHT permit a different interpretation. We just have to accept that We Do Not Copy From Other Sources. and it is not a matter for local rules lawyering. There are other hard and fast rules too, in OSM. Don't engage in edit wars. Treat each other nicely. And then we can express our creativity and genius by fighting over whether this particular way is tertiary or secondary. If you've strong feelings on this topic, and some expertise in the matter, join the License Working Group and start building support for a more flexible set of rules for mappers. Best regards and happy mapping, Richard [1] not on it's own. This is a global project. We have to consider as many jurisdictions, simultaneously as we can. And we all have to live with the consensus. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
