On 5 August 2010 14:19, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > > What makes you think that contractual element will offer any > "protection" in Australia? Has an Australian court case upheld the > enforcement of contractual restriction on people who didn't even know > the contract existed? > > And who told you that OSM is a collection of unoriginal facts? That > part of the argument is rather obviously untrue. OSM is a collection > of unoriginal facts about as much as Wikipedia is. Which is to say, > sure, it *contains* a collection of unoriginal facts, but it expresses > those facts in a unique way. > > <troll>Hum, I think that quite a few things on Wikipedia can be considered creative in the first place allowing for copyrights to kick in. </troll> Hum, in Wikipedia, it is not the facts that is protected but the writing. In OSM, we are talking about a physical representation of those facts namely their geometries, which is quite different.
Emilie Laffray
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
