| |||||||||||||
why delete?why delete?Posted Jan 14, 2011 1:20 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: why delete? by epa Parent article: OpenStreetMap's point of no return
if indeed 'copyright does not apply' and the current licence is unenforceable, One doesn't enforce the license; one enforces the copyright. The license is a copyright holder's waiver of some of his copyright. If copyright does not apply, all we can really say about the license is that any conditions in that license are irrelevant since no one has any need for the license.
(Log in to post comments)
why delete? Posted Jan 14, 2011 7:05 UTC (Fri) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] If copyright does not apply, all we can really say about the license is that any conditions in that license are irrelevant since no one has any need for the license.I completely agree. If the work is not covered by copyright, no licence is necessary! The claim that 'the current licence is unenforceable' is one of the reasons given for replacing it with the ODbL, which attempts to be a click-through EULA enforcing extra restrictions on use of the work. It's not a claim that I agree with and perhaps I should have put it in quotation marks along with 'copyright does not apply' (to computer-readable map data).
why delete? Posted Jan 14, 2011 7:28 UTC (Fri) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954) [Link] All I'm saying is that "the current license is unenforceable" is gibberish. It's not something you can agree with or disagree with; it says nothing. It's like "the current pumpkin is unenforceable." In contrast, "copyright does not apply" means something -- something which may or may not be true.
|
|||||||||||||