Please continue any detailed discussion of this topic to legal-talk ... that's
what it's for.
-Mikel & Moderators
== Mikel Maron ==
+14152835207 @mikel s:mikelmaron
>________________________________
> From: 80n <[email protected]>
>To: Jean-Marc Liotier <[email protected]>
>Cc: [email protected]
>Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 8:11 AM
>Subject: Re: [OSM-talk] An example of the complications inherent in
>determining tainted ways
>
>
>On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 12:30 PM, Jean-Marc Liotier <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>On 15/12/2011 13:17, David Groom wrote:
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>>From: "Jean-Marc Liotier" <[email protected]>
>>>To: <[email protected]>
>>>Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2011 11:59 AM
>>>
>>>But what if the source changes ? When I use high-resolution imagery to
>>>improve areas formerly mapped from low-resolution imagery, I change the
>>>source tag - i.e. from "Yahoo low resolution satellite" to "Microsoft Bing
>>>satellite". Since my edit is correlated with a change of source, shouldn't
>>>it be considered a break from being a derivative ?
>>>>
Yes it should be considered a break, because in that case you know what the
>>>
>>>source for moving the nodes was.
>>>
Good. Now do the license change impact auditing tools currently take that into
account ? Should they only take the object's source tag into account or also
mention of a source in the changeset commit comment ?
>>
>>I think there may be a need to better understand how copyright works in this
>>respect in the real world.
>
>The location of individual nodes probably has no copyright component, however
>the shape of a way probably does [1]. If several people have adjusted the
>shape of a way then they most likely all have joint ownership of the copyright
>of the whole of that way [2].
>
>Joint ownership is an important principle to understand. If someone edits a
>way then they are making a derivative of that way and inheriting *all* of the
>joint copyright ownerships. Even if their changes are to remove the effect of
>a change by one of the previous contributors it does not, as far as I know,
>delete that contributors copyright.
>
>If this is true, then the only way to disinfect a tainted way is to revert
>back to the version prior to the infection and applying subsequent changes to
>that version. Simply negating changes does not delete copyright ownership
>because the ownership extends to the whole work.
>
>Does anyone know of any precedents that show how copyright, once gained, can
>be deleted from a work?
>
>80n
>
>
>[1] Section 1 (b) (i) of
>http://membled.com/work/osm/Map_Project_Memo_public_FINAL.pdf
>
>[2] Section 2a of
>http://membled.com/work/osm/Map_Project_Memo_public_FINAL.pdf
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>talk mailing list
>[email protected]
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
