richard at systemeD.net
Fri Oct 17 23:26:21 BST 2008
Frederik Ramm wrote:
>> 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
Well, there ain't none.
Sorry, I'm over-simplifying. But the question is really simple, it's
just the answer that's complicated.
In some jurisdictions you have statutory protection for geodata under
copyright law and, sometimes, "neighbouring rights" (e.g. EU database
law). So everything's easy.
In other jurisdictions, you have to rely, to a greater or lesser
extent, on contract. And there's no clever wording, no "find a
licence", that can get around that. Usage of the database is
regulated by statute, by contract, or by judicious application of a
baseball bat; they're the only options.
Our data, along with that of every geodata company in the world, will
be made available in contract-biased jurisdictions (like the US).
Does TeleAtlas require click-through to work? No. Does Navteq? No.
So does ODBL? No. Come on.
It's all about appetite for risk. OSMF some time last year took a
view, subject to consultation, that click-through would improve
enforceability without a deleterious effect on usability. You
disagree. That's fine. On balance, and after several months' thought,
I think I probably do, too.
But Jochen, when you say "So I know that it is not enforcable unless
both parties have agreed" and start quoting Wikipedia, with respect,
that's the worst type of barrack-room lawyer. "Agreed" isn't that
simple. Read the summaries of the Register.com vs Verio case I cited
earlier. That is a contract being enforced, in a contract-only
jurisdiction, _without_ anyone clicking "I agree". It's a case
relating to repeated extraction from a big database - actually quite
similar to OSM.
I'd also point out that, of all the reasons to switch from CC-BY-SA
to ODBL, enforceability is certainly no higher than third in my list. :)
More information about the legal-talk