[OSM-legal-talk] Privacy and Terms

[Matt Amos]

On Fri, Jul 3, 2009 at 4:42 PM, Ed Avis<eda at waniasset.com> wrote:
> Francis Davey <fjmd1a at ...> writes:
>>>Therefore, granting permission on the data can only be a real consideration
>>>when there is some pre-existing law which means the other party needs such
>>>permission.  That can be copyright law, database right or whatever.
>>
>>Sure. That's exactly right. But that assumes that the other
>>contracting party has the data already. Having a contract that only
>>permits you to download it from my site (or whatever) will have
>>consideration because I don't  have to let you do that
>
> Good point.  So if there is a contract you must agree to before downloading the
> data, the consideration can be that you received a copy of the data.

not really. the ODbL is enforceable through IPR alone. there is no
need to have people agree to *view* the data. the license (or more
probably a link to it) will be present in all downloaded data, similar
to the LICENSE file in GPL software.

> Much better IMHO to rely on copyright law and other laws such as database right,
> which apply whether you have signed a contract or not.  If these laws do not
> exist in a particular country, well, that's a choice for the citizens of that
> country.

the ODbL does. perhaps you should read it?

>>The idea behind the ODbL is, as I understand it, precisely to try to
>>impose wider controls than would be possible by merely using
>>intellectual property law.
>
> Yes, that's exactly why I for one dislike it.  And the side-effects, such as
> banning anonymous downloads of the data set (or indeed downloads by minors, who
> might not be bound by any purported contract) are unpleasant too.

it doesn't ban anonymouse downloads.

>>But you are mixing up more than one issue. The lack of negotiation and
>>standard form is a wholly different question. Such a contract (a
>>contract of adhesion as my US colleagues would call it) may well bring
>>in other legal considerations.
>
> Yes... I think the proposed ODbL has all three question marks over its validity
> as a contract.  You have dealt with one of them, consideration, by pointing out
> that merely getting a copy of the data can be consideration - which is fine,
> as long as nobody somehow gets a copy other than from the OSM website...

all forms of license suffer from this, including common opensource
licenses like GPL, etc... even CC-BY-SA.

and, as we all know, GPL and CC-BY-SA are ineffectual for databases.

cheers,

matt