[OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL
osm at inbox.org
Sun Dec 6 05:57:19 GMT 2009
On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com> wrote:
> the agreement doesn't kick in from the reading of the license, it
> kicks in when you do something that only the license would permit you
> to do.
The whole basis of the switch away from CC-BY-SA is that there is doubt as
to whether or not the OSM database is copyrightable in certain
jurisdictions, including the one I happen to live in.
Assuming this is correct, and the OSM database is treated as a non-creative
compilation of facts (a la the phone book in Feist), there is *nothing* that
only the ODbL permits me to do.
remember, rights are default: deny.
Not where I live for a database of facts.
> the data would contain a link to and notice about the license.
I'm sure I could find a distribution somewhere that didn't. Or extract the
data from some other source which didn't have the license. In any case,
notice about the license doesn't constitute agreement to the license.
if someone obtains the database from OSM they must maintain the license
> notice, as required by ODbL.
They're supposed to. But c'mon, someone somewhere is going to slip. This
isn't Tele Atlas data, which can be kept under lock and key with only a
handful of companies allowed to access the entire database (and even then,
probably not the raw data).
> therefore, if someone downloads if from
> them, the license notice is intact and they implicitly agree to it as
> soon as they are simultaneously aware of it and performing acts
> governed by it.
By continuing to read this email, you agree to the following terms and
conditions. If you disagree, you must delete this email immediately. Your
continued reading indicates your acceptance....
Kind of like that?
this is very similar to how copyright licenses (e.g: GPL) work - you
> don't have to click-though a license to get the source code. a notice
> about the license is included in the source code. you implicitly agree
> to the license as soon as you are simultaneously aware of it and
> perform acts governed by it (redistribution of modified source code or
> binaries). it's perfectly possible to obtain, modify, compile and
> distribute a GPL'ed application without seeing the GPL itself once,
> yet it still applies.
The GPL, like CC-BY-SA, is based on copyright law. The GPL, like CC-BY-SA,
is a unilateral conditional waiver of rights (you may do X, provided that
you do Y). The ODbL, on the other hand, is set up as a bilateral exchange
of covenants (we promise X, you promise Y). That is, in fact, the whole
point of the ODbL. It attempts to reach, through contract law, into
jurisdictions where copyright law does not apply.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the talk