On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > Anthony wrote: >> >> On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 3:45 PM, Matt Amos <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> OSMF is not moving to "a PD license disguised as BY-SA" >> >> Then why don't they ever talk about the fact that the contents are >> going to be released under DbCL? > > Because it is irrelevant given that the Database as a whole is protected, > rather than the individual pieces it contains which, as you correctly state, > are largely unprotectable anway?
Perhaps you can clarify what it means for the Database as a whole to be protected, but the individual pieces not to be. Specifically, what does that mean in a jurisdiction which does not recognize database rights. What does the DbCL permit people to do which would not be permitted in its absense? What's the point of it? _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
