[OSM-legal-talk] Houses of cards

[Richard Fairhurst]

Frederik Ramm wrote:

> Of course we'd have all the right in the world to sue A. But we'd not
> have anything we can use against B. And the remainder of your posting
> talks about how we'll cut A to pieces, but that wasn't what I was
> debating.

Ok, I wasn't explicit enough. Basically this proceeds from OSM  
choosing to bring a case against A.

Depending on jurisdiction, AIUI, you could potentially seek some  
combination of "specific performance" (You Must Do This) and an  
injunction (You Must Not Do This) against both A and B, telling them  
to distribute the licence only under the terms of the contract. For  
example, specific performance against A (i.e. you must reinstate the  
licence in your distribution) _and_ an injunction against B (destroy  
the data and make no further use of it, unless you agree to the  
contract that A should have agreed with you).

>>> But, like I say, this isn't so much IANAL as IAWOOMD - I Am Way  
>>> Out Of My Depth. <<<

The point with all of this is that theoretical means of "protection"  
may well exist (to use the common word, even though it doesn't fit in  
with either your or my views). ODC-Database provides this on three  
levels (contract, copyright, db right) and the OSM community adds a  
fourth (peer pressure/bad PR/norms).

There is no gaping hole. There may be holes for bad guys to worm their  
way through, as John has said. These holes hinge on legal  
interpretation and would theoretically be settled in court: the  
combination of pressure/PR and the complexity of a legal case would,  
we hope, stop it getting that far.

If we stick with a share-alike approach, this is, I believe,  
absolutely the best we can get. The alternative is going PD, and  
that's what you'd like and ideally what I'd like, too. But that's not  
a legal issue, it's a social one.

>> Evil Bastard A has breached the
>> contract by removing the licencing stuff at the start of planet.xml
>
> You're talking a hypothetical future planet.osm? Because the current
> one has none.

Yup, in the same way we're talking a hypothetical future licence here.  
People have several times brought up the lack of any such info in  
planet.osm as a failing even under our current licence.

cheers
Richard