[OSM-legal-talk] Further Concerns about ODbL

[Rob Myers]

On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 1:18 PM, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net> wrote:

> In which case I would suggest that the OSM database be stored in a country
> which is not subject to the database law, and that the "substantial"  clause
> in the ODbl license be reworked.

This would not whelp users of copies of OSM imported to countries
covered by the database law, though.

> I have a problem with "might", isn't the whole issue of moving to a new
> license supposed to do away with the "you might be allowed to do this with
> our data, and then again you might not" problem?  Yeas I realise all laws
> are subject to interpretation, and in the UK at least the statute law is
> backed up with case law, but to start with a license which is so open to
> problems doesn't seem a great step forward.

The point is to get a licence that works at all (!). And law being how
it is (as Steve eloquently mentioned), the licence simply cannot avoid
ambiguity where there is ambiguity in law.

- Rob.