Hm. I posit that whatever Francis comes up with could (and probably will
be) reasonably be accused of bias, and by asking for a recommendation
for advice in the US propagates the same bias. To be clear, I'm saying
accused and the bias could be in either direction merely by hanging
around here. I'm happy as ever to be wrong, but we could minimise said
accusation by picking a random big firm.
As Francis said in another thread:
"That it was drafted, carefully, by a lawyer I do not doubt. But lawyers
draft things on instruction to achieve particular goals."
Therefore I think it's going to require you to release the full
instructions too. I'm guessing it's an email thread?
That you're paying for this and taking the initiative to publish your
efforts should be applauded, but lets try not to fall in to the same
traps as the LWG? I'm half surprised nobody has jumped on you about not
releasing the full US position like they jumped on the LWG for example.
Steve
On 7/25/2011 4:17 AM, Ed Avis wrote:
I haven't wanted to make too much noise before I get the results back,
though I have discussed this with the LWG. In the UK I have asked
Francis Davey to do the work - he has often contributed to this list.
He recommended a US attorney, Cathy Gellis. She in turn asked to
bring in Jon Rubens, and they are working together. I am glad I was
able to follow a chain of recommendations in this way rather than
having to pick a law firm myself.
Briefly the two questions I've asked about are the extent to which OSM
map data is covered by copyright (and therefore, to which the
share-alike provisions of CC-BY-SA are enforceable); and whether the
additional contract-law provisions of the ODbL help enforceability.
Francis Davey is also going to report on European database right law.
I have made it quite clear that I am not involved in any legal action,
nor likely to be, and so I'm not concerned about the usual issues of
confidentiality and privilege. Nonetheless the US law firms are a
little jumpy about producing something which will be posted publicly.
I will probably need to summarize or report their findings in my own
words, although I hope to share the full report with individuals who'd
like to see it.
Clearly, I have my own views on OSM licensing, but I have tried to put
the legal questions in neutral terms. Sometimes I wasn't sure how
specific to make them: am I asking about copyrightability of geodata
in general, or OSM in particular? The US attorneys raised several
interesting questions, such as what happens when contributors are from
different countries, but I have tried to narrow the scope by asking
them to assume all parties are in the USA. Similarly, questions about
what exactly is a 'produced work' under the ODbL, or what exactly the
DbCL covers, are not something I have asked about.
I am paying for this work myself. I will of course report the outcome
whether or not it supports my personal viewpoint. I expect a few weeks
more of waiting.
--
Ed Avis<e...@waniasset.com>
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-t...@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
