In essence, EU, UK and the USA has different opinion on the ownership status and rights of databases.
EU: Databases are similar to other copyrightable works, thus you can't simply copy someones database.
UK: Like EU but with different flavour.
USA: There's no such things as database rights.
Apparently, although the positions of UK and EU are similar, since UK is no longer in the EU and there's no mutual agreement on how to make things work those who want to have their databases protected by the law need to move to the jurisdiction that fits their needs and in the case of OpenStreetMap that would be EU.
fun fact: The last time the database rights was a hot topic, it was about Google copying the database of a small company that specialises in building a database of net worth of celebrities.
You are entitled to create a similar database based on your own efforts or research. So, you could walk the streets of London with an iPad to make your own KmlxStreetMap. You just can't directly copy or transfer rows from someone else's.
This seems like a good page: https://www.pinsentmasons.com/out-law/guides/database-rights...
If I compile a record of all temperatures for the last 10 years, How can I prevent someone from also creating a database that has temperatures for the last 10 years?
That is why in US Law facts can not be copyrighted, only "creative" works, and facts are not creative they are facts
It's not something most people need to worry about, but I expect OpenStreetMap won't be the only company affected by that.
I have a tendency for cynicism so I have noticed that the article mentions their failure to obtain charity status, which suggests that they may be looking at lowering their tax bill...
I'm not sure I follow, surely the OSM database existed before 1/1/21 thus they have no issues or does it apply to db updates?
Surely this is a problem already with the USA and the rest of the world? If this protection is not enforced everywhere in the world, it's quite useless. I just need to setup a foreign company to bypass it.
This is probably something that is "solved" with a contract: Eg. "By downloading this database you agree to abide to these rules: don't clone it or we'll sue you for X millions"
You can already download https://planet.openstreetmap.org/ completely for free. There are certain obligations for usage of the data though, you have to abide to the OpenStreetMap License: https://www.openstreetmap.org/copyright/en
check the node density of OSM [0]. notice a pattern?
on a forward looking basis pre-empting any regulatory risk would seem quite a weighty factor. being located in the jurisdiction that reflects the majority of their user base is not a silver bullet but probably shields them from diverging UK/EU rules
[0] https://tyrasd.github.io/osm-node-density/#2/43.8/26.4/lates...
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2021-Jun...
So moving to the EU solves some problems but adds more?
As someone who's done English support in France, it sounds like preconceived notions that don't match reality. The tech industry is usually literate in English, even if the rest of the country can't give a care.
Very noticeable change vs the first time I visited in the early 90's.
The 'left' part of copyleft is about distribution or dissemination, and other rights bestowed. It doesn't challenge copyright at all.
You cannot grant rights for works without ownership, so PD has left the chat, so to speak.
One “important reason”, Rischard said, was the failure of the UK and EU to agree on mutual recognition of database rights. While both have an agreement to recognise copyright protections, that only covers work which is creative in nature.
Whereas if, from first principles, the rights of the license holder are recognised, then it's much easier to have your rights enforced.
Database protection is the biggest reason for moving, but not the only one.
If the work isn't protected by copyright, you can still write that license, but you have no means of enforcing said license.
These are pertinent concerns for which I have never found a definitive answer.
A. In most jurisdictions, you can't copyright facts (nor should you be able to, IMO).
B. I can't see why OpenStreetmap has to rely on copyright.
C. OSM data is provided by the public. It shouldn't be any kind of "property".
