frederik at remote.org
Mon Feb 25 21:40:31 GMT 2008
I'm still a bit taken aback by the perspective of possibly having
to cover any and all OSM data by a clickwrap or browsewrap agreement
page. Yes I know all the arguments about long term freedom vs. short
term freedom and so on, but if it comes to a situation where you have
to register with us and confirm that you agree to some terms or other,
then our site will look like the myriad of web sites that offer
so-called "free" stuff but only if you trade in your privacy and only
if you first read a 10 page license agreement (or you choose not to
read it but then you have the guilty feeling of never knowing if
you're still within it).
Such a practice would proably quickly land us on bugmenot.com;
bugmenot.com users would then somewhat "illegally" access our site (at
least they'd bypass our user authentication), and before we know it
we'd have a lot of users who don't feel part of the project but rather
feel that they have somehow cheated on us. Not a road I'd like to go
down really, I'd like the project to receive people with open arms and
not a little hole cut in the door where they first have to say the
By accident I stumbled onto a boingboing post lamenting some
Will I have to display something on my web sites in the future that
"Note to OpenStreetMap contributors. READ CAREFULLY. By reading this
web site, you agree to release me from all obligations and waivers
arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses,
terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality,
non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies..."
But bitter jokes aside, IF the foundation wants to continue this ODL
stuff and actually initiate a license change, I would hope that it is
made very clear from the beginning how the contractual aspect of the
ODL will have to be communicated to the end-user and what restrictions
this causes for anyone redistributing OSM data.
Of course, the easiest thing, and the one I'd be happiest with, would
be to just ask every re-distributor to mention the source and license,
that would be no difference from today - but would that be sufficient
to make sure that the guy who gets the data from the re-distributor
enters into the desired contract?
Frederik Ramm ## eMail frederik at remote.org ## N49°00.09' E008°23.33'
More information about the legal-talk