On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 5, 2010 at 9:25 AM, Emilie Laffray <emilie.laff...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> <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. > > In what way is OSM "a physical representation" any more than > Wikipedia? In both cases it's just bits in a database. > > The representation is what's protected. The facts are not.
By the way, if you know the history of copyright, you'll know that maps were one of the first two types of works which were protected. When copyright was invented, it protected books and maps. The idea that copyright does not cover maps is very strange when you consider that. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
