As for every legal argument on the internet: Surprise, there are different countries with different laws.
But I guess you are mostly right, for many countries this is the case. OTOH there is a reason OSM prohibits scanning and tracing other commercial maps.
That's a completely reasonable policy for OSM to avoid getting sued by commercial map data providers -- plus I'm sure OSM would hate to make an argument in court that could be used to invalidate OSM's copyright.
Switching to an open-but-not-share-alike license makes all of this easier.
Sorry, I can't follow. On the one hand you say it's not in OSMs interest to argue in court there is no copyright on maps, on the other you say it's in their interest to give their copyright up?
If OSM cares about the share-alike part of their license, they have to successfully defend their copyright on the data. If OSM moves to open-but-not-share-alike, they no longer care if their copyright on the facts in their database is valid.
Thanks, I understand that better. I still think it's not a good argument; you seem to say that if they stopped caring about something there would be less trouble. That seems pure spinelessness.
I read the license/contract. It is enforceable much like the GPL if the data is copyright. It is significantly weakened if the data is not copyright and you're in a place with no concept of "database rights" (e.g. the USA.)
The lawyers who wrote the ODBL understand this issue: check out how they define the word 'use' in section 1.
But I guess you are mostly right, for many countries this is the case. OTOH there is a reason OSM prohibits scanning and tracing other commercial maps.