[OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms

[Ed Avis]

Francis Davey <fjmd1a at ...> writes:

>Many websites have terms and conditions (eg amazon
>and tesco) and they do so because using those sites goes beyond just
>having a browse but involves rather more interaction (including the
>handing over of money).

>In the case of OSM things don't go that far (importantly no money
>changes hands) but users of the site can add content to it.

Yes, which is why a contributor agreement is needed - but that does not mean
you need a set of terms and conditions just to *read* the site.

>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.

I think if it's necessary to undertake a complex contractual obligation just to
look at some map data, then it is no longer free map data.  But if we assume
that the goal of OSM is now 'provide legally encumbered map data under EULA'
for the sake of this discussion...

>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.

Yes, and they have to agree to it (just seeing it on a web page is not enough),
and although IANAL, I think there must be some consideration, for example a
monetary payment.  It's not clear that putting up an intimidating screenful
of legal boilerplate accomplishes anything.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>