groklaw.net - I subscribed to their newletter during the hottest part of the lawsuit. Wasn't just SCO vs Linux, was more SCO vs Linux vs IBM vs everybody else. And where did everything start? In a piece of source code if I remember right. Something in the Linux kernel supposedly came from a piece of copyrighted code bought by SCO from IBM.
So if that applies here, the street names somebody copies from Google can become the property of xxxx and xxxx opens lawsuite against OSM for stealing their work? I believe SCO had some form of evidence other than "word on the street", don't know if such claims about street names can be proved in the same way though. On Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 12:25 AM, John Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > Friverlous lawsuits can and have been used to bankrupt competition and > you only have to look at sco v linux to see how far they can go > > On 06/01/2010, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 9:55 AM, Ulf Lamping >> <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> Am 05.01.2010 15:17, schrieb Anthony: >>> > I certainly don't suggest blatantly breaking the law. What I suggest is >>> > not acting as though there is a law when you have no evidence that there >>> is. >>> > >>> > So far no one has shown me the law that is supposedly being broken. One >>> > brief attempt pointed to EU database law, which 1) hasn't been shown to >>> > apply in Australia; and 2) hasn't been shown to apply to all instances >>> > of copying anyway. >>> >>> So we'll end up with a map only being legally usable in Australia. >> >> >> What makes you think that? >> >> >>> Fine for you, but not a goal that I have. >>> >> >> Nor a goal I have, since I don't live in Australia. >> >>> What we're left with is some sort of vague "Pascal's Wager" type >>> > admonishment - "I have absolutely no evidence for my claims, but you >>> > have to follow what I say anyway because not doing so would be >>> > infinitely bad." I don't buy that crap. >>> >>> So unless a mapper was drawn to bancrupt at court, you still won't agree >>> that there might be a problem. >>> >> >> What makes you think that? >> >> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 2:15 PM, John Smith <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> 2010/1/6 Anthony <[email protected]>: >>> > Really? Where? What laws are being suggested to be broken? >>> >>> Not familiar with frivilous lawsuits? >>> >> >> Just don't see that applicability. >> >>> I certainly don't suggest blatantly breaking the law. What I suggest is >>> not >>> > acting as though there is a law when you have no evidence that there is. >>> >>> Not only is there copyright law, in the case of Google and other >>> online services there is also contract law. >>> >> >> Yes, there is also contract law which no one has shown to apply. By the >> way, in any EU states, any contractual provision which attempts to "prevent >> a lawful user of the database from extracting and/or re-utilizing >> insubstantial parts of its contents, evaluated qualitatively and/or >> quantitatively, for any purposes whatsoever" "is null and void". I don't >> know if Australia has such a provision, though. >> >> >>> > So far no one has shown me the law that is supposedly being broken. One >>> > brief attempt pointed to EU database law, which 1) hasn't been shown to >>> > apply in Australia; and 2) hasn't been shown to apply to all instances >>> > of >>> > copying anyway. >>> >>> You mustn't have asked the right questions, see the Telstra ruling. >>> >> >> Seems to me there's a difference between copying an entire phone book and >> copying a few street names. I find it hard to believe that anyone who gives >> someone else directions after consulting with a map is committing a >> copyright violation. >> > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
