[OSM-legal-talk] ODBL enforcement: contract law and remedies

Matt Amos zerebubuth at gmail.com
Wed Oct 28 20:26:52 GMT 2009


On 10/28/09, Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com> wrote:
> Matt Amos <zerebubuth at ...> writes:
>
>>these sites are in non-compliance with the license
>>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Lacking_proper_attribution
>
> Would switching to ODBL (or any licence) solve this particular problem?

quite possibly, since ODbL or PD would allow the tiles to be licensed
in whichever way the renderer / cartographer sees fit. but certainly
the ODbL makes the discussions of data licensing and produced work
licensing orthogonal.

>>as a thought experiment, what would happen if i took the latest planet
>>and put it up on my server (let's assume that both i and my server are
>>in the US) with a PD license?
>
> So what then?  One of the copyright holders would have to sue. [...]
>
> Even if the case is not cut and dried, there is certainly enough here to
> keep the lawyers busy for a while.  Which, IMHO, is a strong enough
> deterrent
> for anyone thinking of misusing the data.  Consider how much time and money
> the SCO - Linux case has taken up so far, on a far flimsier basis.
>
> One thing which weakens the case is that there is not a single copyright
> holder.  Certainly copyright assignment to a single entity such as the
> OSMF would make it easier to sue.

which of the contributors out there has the funds to hire a lawyer in the US?

copyright assignment has been discussed before, but i remember there
were a lot of objections. it seems that copyright assignment wasn't
very popular, despite that being the solution that the FSF have chosen
for their software.

> (As discussed earlier, even if the USA declines to recognize any copyright
> interest in OSM data, there are other jurisdictions, and few US companies
> would want to use data they had to keep strictly within the USA's borders
> or risk a lawsuit.  I just don't believe it would happen.)

if you're suing an individual then you pretty much have to sue in the
jurisdiction where that individual lives. large companies are easier,
because they operate in several jurisdictions. i agree it's unlikely
to happen, but it's better to have a more defensible legal position in
case it does.

>>i think we're agreed that all licenses have flaws. the sticking point
>>seems to be that i'm of the opinion that CC's flaws are so great that
>>the hassle of moving to a better license is the lesser evil. you
>>appear to be of the opinion that the hassle is greater than any
>>potential benefits. is that an accurate statement?
>
> That is fair; I might even go so far to say that with 50k contributors,
> a licence change is 'totally unworkable' and 'not an option', to borrow some
> of the phrases used earlier.  However I would like to be pleasantly
> surprised about this.

yep. i'd say that a license change is difficult, but that the
alternative is worse; continuing with a license which can be described
using those same phrases ;-)

cheers,

matt




More information about the legal-talk mailing list