[OSM-legal-talk] Click-through

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Richard Fairhurst wrote:
> It's worth clarifying that the click-through is not something that's  
> expressly specified in "the license" (i.e. ODBL).

There are two important aspects to this.

First, if we want the community to make an informed decision about 
whether they want the ODbL or not (rather than luring them into it), we 
have to make very clear what this entails. If we (or our lawyers) should 
believe that ODbL without clickthrough doesn't work, and that therefore 
a decision in favour of ODbL is a decision in favour of clickthrough, 
then we must let people know - *before* they decide.

Second, if the viral aspect of the ODbL should indeed depend on the 
licensee being shown the terms of the license and agreeing to them 
before even getting access to the data, then of course every instance of 
"you must publish/make available/..." in the ODbL must be amended by *at 
least* a wording like "... in a manner suitable for upholding the 
contractual aspect of this license ...".

> So "if we can't get rid of the click-through" is not the question. 

Replace it by "if we cannot find a license that works without clicktrough".

I'm willing to hear discussion on this but I really believe clicktrough 
is the embodiment of impracticality. One could never make sure that data 
doesn't leak, and I suspect it would make many distribution channels 
impossible or at least quite cumbersome. (Peer-to-peer networks spring 
to mind.) I have a habit of ridiculing people for claiming anything with 
a 10-page license text is "free", but if the 10-page-license text is 
forced in your face and you have to click "I agree" then I truly believe 
I'll not remain alone for long.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"