[OSM-legal-talk] legal-talk Digest, Vol 31, Issue 4

[Rob Myers]

John Wilbanks wrote:

> This is why if you peruse the CC0 site, you'll see it referred to as a 
> legal tool and not a license. It's a small thing, but an important thing 
> to remember. Conflating the waiving of rights with the licensing of 
> rights is what we're trying to avoid in this context.

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/zero/1.0/legalcode

"2. Should the Waiver for any reason be judged legally invalid or
ineffective under applicable law, then the Waiver shall be preserved to
the maximum extent permitted and Affirmer hereby grants to each such
affected recipient of the Work a worldwide, royalty-free, non exclusive,
perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright), non
transferable, non sublicensable, irrevocable and unconditional license"

Sometimes we have to use licences where we would rather people or the
law just allowed the right thing. Sometimes they are the least worst
solution.

But they are not the least worst solution if they don't work, and I am
concerned about the scenario you describe where individuals who are not
party to the contract extract the data.

- Rob.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 260 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20090301/15e9fba3/attachment.pgp>