[OSM-legal-talk] Houses of cards

[Charles Basenga Kiyanda]

rob at robmyers.org wrote:
> Quoting Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org>:
>
>   
>>> Nonetheless, browse-wrap contracts _can_ potentially be valid if done
>>> right
>>> (http://www.ecomputerlaw.com/articles/show_article.php?
>>> article=2006_clickwrap_and_browsewrap_agreements - hey, written by
>>> a lawyer).
>>>       
>> Yes, and "doing them right" includes, as the very first thing listed
>> on that page:
>>
>> "It starts with reasonable notice. You want these online agreements
>> to be as obvious as possible. If you decide to use “browsewrap,” the
>> “Terms and Conditions” link should appear on every page and your
>> websurfer shouldn’t have to scroll down to see the link."
>>
>> Now since we assume A to be evil, A will certainly publish the data
>> without any notice whatsoever about a contract that you are supposed
>> to enter by browsing. The result is that B who browses A's offerings
>> can never ever become party to a contract he doesn't know anything
>> about.
>>     
>
> And in the absence of any rights which can be denied to B if they fail  
> to enter into a contract, there is nothing that can be done about this.
>
> - Rob.
>   

Have been lurking in the shadows for a while and had the following question.

I'm a bit confused. Isn't that situation, in US jurisdiction, a problem 
with any copyleft license that would be adopted? I can do this with gpl 
software, too. I can download the linux kernel, take away the license 
notices and then sell it to someone to use in a proprietary product. 
Then we have the same situation. I can do this with a CC'd image. I can 
download it, take away the licensing notices and then sell to a company 
for an ad campaign, claiming it as my own.

The fact that I used a sale example above is irrelevant (albeit 
interesting as you could now sue for any profit I have made). For the 
sake of argument, let's say I give it away and ask for credit, without 
crediting those before me, thereby breaching the license.

The way I see this, any copyleft license will have this problem. The 
other option, PD, offers no protection. Isn't the issue raised not with 
the license, rather with the way the project is organized? We're giving 
the database away. That makes it extremely easy to steal it. On the 
other hand, that's part of the very essence of OSM.

Regards,
Charles


>
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk
>