On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 9:43 PM, John Smith <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:deltafoxtrot256@gmail.com" target="_blank">deltafoxtrot256@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>2009/12/6 Anthony <<a href="mailto:osm@inbox.org" target="_blank">osm@inbox.org</a>>:<br>
</div><div>>> Click through type agreements have already been deemed as<br>
>> unenforceable,<br>
><br>
> Can you provide me with a few links to back that up (off-list or on the<br>
> legal list if you think it's too off-topic)? To my knowledge the<br>
> enforceability is spotty and unclear.<br>
<br>
</div>Trying to find the judgement, was a few years ago now.<br></blockquote><div><br>Might want to check <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click-through_license" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click-through_license</a> . A quick scan finds one case where the license was found unenforceable (because it was unconscionable), and several where it was found enforceable.<br>
<br>I'm not sure what you consider a "click through type agreement", but if you're including websites which have you click on some equivalent of "I agree", I can't imagine that could possible be found unenforceable. Without it, e-commerce could never exist.<br>
<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>> In any case, I see little chance of the switch being made under the terms<br>
> outlined. Between people who refuse the Contributor Terms and people who<br>
> just never respond, there's likely going to be *way* too much to delete.<br>
<br>
</div>What about people unable to change the terms of their contributions<br>
due to being contributed by governments?<br>
</blockquote></div><br>Yeah, them too. But I read earlier that only 10% of contributors are currently active. What's going to be kept? Besides the public domain imports (like TIGER), I can't see it being more than 25%. And that means any fork that springs up will have 4 times as much data to start with. Am I underestimating the amount of data that will be kept? Am I being naive in believing that the data from people who don't respond is really going to be removed? I honestly can't see how this switch can possibly succeed.<br>
<br>Unlike some others, I'm not angry about it, though. Mr. Lamping analogized earlier about a gun being to the heads of the contributors. But a better analogy would be that the OSMF is sticking a gun to its own head when it says "agree to the changes or we'll pull the trigger".<br>