On 1 Mar 2009, at 22:33, OJ W wrote: > 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)
I am not familiar with that case, but I think we should ensure that everything in the FAQ/Use Cases is confirmed by the license, but it is written in a much more useful and relevant form for most people. The FAQ would say at the top 'this is not the license, the license is the license and if there is a conflict then the license and what is written here then the license is the definitive source. This is not too different from the CC summary page that says 'This is a human-readable summary of the Legal Code (the full license). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.0/ Regards, Peter > > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
