[OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms

[Frederik Ramm]

Francis,

Francis Davey wrote:
> That may be true, but if I want to attach a complex contractual
> obligation on anyone who uses the data (which is what the new open
> data licence will do) then I need to make sure that you know you are
> agreeing to it.

This is most likely not going to happen with OSM data. We already have a 
well-established scheme where OSM data is downloaded, mirrored, and 
distributed anonymously.

Not only do many computer sites automatically download new OSM data as 
it becomes available on planet.openstreetmap.org; this data is then 
aggregated, converted, and redistributed by many, professionals and 
hobbyists alike.

It is not feasible to release the data only under the condition that the 
person downloading it has clicked some "I agree" button somewhere; 
because this would not only force us to change how osm.org works, but we 
would also have to add some "contractual" obligation to anyone 
downloading our data to only pass it on to people who agree to the 
terms/license etc!

If you want more background, you might want to check the legal-talk 
archives for the words "browse wrap" and "click wrap".

What we will most likely have is some message inside the downloaded data 
that says "by using this you agree to blah blah blah".

> There's a difference between that and a pure copyright
> licence since you don't have a right to use copyrighted material
> without a licence (or some exception holding) so "I didn't know the
> terms of the licence" won't help someone who wants to "steal" the
> data, whereas if you want someone to be bound by a contract you have
> to bring its terms to their attention.

True but it is absolutely not feasible to make data release dependent on 
someone reading and agreeing to some terms. Even if it were, a 
license/contract scheme built on this would only require one rogue 
element violating the contract and passing the data on to others who 
haven't entered into the contract and everything would fall apart.

> That of course is not the same question as the T&C's for use of the
> website (which is a different matter) but I flag this up here as you
> bring it up.

It is a point that has been discussed a lot in the run-up to the new 
license. Any advice you have on all this is surely valued by the license 
working group, but you might want to read their minutes on 
osmfoundation.org and/or peruse the legal-talk archive to get an idea of 
the process.

> No (though you will often see small print disclaimers on them). The
> idea of restricting access to age 13+ strikes me as odd in the
> extreme. When I get some time I'll do some research into what is going
> on in the US that makes them do this.

Please do because I would hate to lose my son's mapping help!

Bye
Frederik