On Sun, Mar 1, 2009 at 10:06 PM, Peter Miller <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 1 Mar 2009, at 21:49, Frederik Ramm wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Peter Miller wrote: >>> I think these Use Cases are going to end up being twins of an >>> eventual >>> FAQ that I imagine will exist. >> >> I am starting to think that perhaps the license should be >> accompanied by >> a kind of "interpretation document" which may or may not be the same >> as >> this FAQ. >> >> There are probably things that the license will never specify exactly, >> like the question of "where in this chain does that database cease to >> exist". As stated numerous times on this list, applying the EU >> definition of "database", even a PNG tile is a database... >> >> So if we'd have a document clarifying these things for OSM - even if >> this might not be legally binding but just an expression of intent - >> that would be a much better basis for the individual mapper to >> actually >> say yes. > > I agree. The license is the License, and that is by necessity written > in legal language. If we use the Use Case page to describe common > real life situations and then get the lawyers in the end to give their > verdict on them it will form a very useful bridge between the > practical and the legal. It will also mean that most people will be > able to see 'their' use listed with a bit 'yes' next to it which will > be reassuring,
that would only be meaningful if it were incorporated into the license? (e.g. see SCO vs Novell where the language of a contract was sufficiently clear that the parties' interpretations of it were not even considered) _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
