Okay, so, I think this thread is wrapping up. I'd like to make a summary of what I've learned: o A substantial number of OSM contributors believe that the Wikipedia lat/lon doesn't meet our standards for fair use of copyrighted works. o Some OSM contributors believe that data imports are inherently suspect, and that the only way to have reliable copyright provenance is to go there and take a GPS waypoint. o There are a variety of opinions about what copyright protects, not all of which are likely to be correct (and note that I include myself in this set). o Some largish number of Wikipedia POIs are already in OSM. o And that if anything, our geodata should be contributed back into Wikipedia rather than the direction I originally proposed.
I apologize if I've offended anybody by arguing too hard (specifically RichardF, Rob Reid, and Iván). I *do* believe that some of the copyright assertions made by suppliers of aerial imagery go well beyond anything enforcible in a court of law, but absent a legal opinion in enough legal systems to make everyone comfortable, it's not reasonable to claim fair use for digitizing points. On May 7, 2009, at 3:25 AM, Lars Aronsson wrote: > any legal process against OpenStreetMap would put the entire > project at risk. No, not innocent infringement for reasons I've explained earlier. -- Russ Nelson - http://community.cloudmade.com/blog - http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/User:RussNelson r...@cloudmade.com - Twitter: Russ_OSM - http://openstreetmap.org/user/RussNelson _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
