[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Thu Dec 9 13:59:02 GMT 2010


On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:35 AM, Robert Kaiser <kairo at kairo.at> wrote:
> Anthony schrieb:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 11:34 AM, Robert Kaiser<kairo at kairo.at>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Anthony schrieb:
>>>>
>>>> One alternative is status quo.
>>>
>>> Good idea. We'll just have to make sure anyone using our data is located
>>> in
>>> some jurisdiction where this is equivalent to PD (from all I've heard,
>>> there
>>> are quite a few). :P
>>
>> Please explain how the ODbL changes that, in the context of case law
>> regarding shrink-wrap, browse-wrap, and the OSM situation which I'm
>> going to refer to as I-wish-it-were-true-wrap.
>
> I have read from more knowledgeable people here that the ODbL does apply, it
> may have been something like being a contract and not just a license, but
> IANAL, so I really can't explain details.

Okay, well, I'm just letting you know that you're wrong.  A contract
doesn't apply to people who haven't accepted it.

If you can't show why something is true, you really shouldn't be
basing your arguments on it.



More information about the legal-talk mailing list