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

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Thu Dec 9 14:08:17 GMT 2010


On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 8:49 AM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
> Anthony:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Please name the jurisdictions you have in mind and provide references to the
> applicable case law in those jurisdictions. Please also provide sources
> demonstrating that data is PD in those jurisdictions.

I think you're confusing me.  I'm not the one claiming that data is PD
in some jurisdictions.  Robert Kaiser is.  He said "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"

It wasn't my claim, so I don't know what jurisdictions he was talking
about.  And to be more specific, I don't believe there is any
jurisdiction in which OSM, in its entirety, is PD.

I do know that unorganized collections of facts are PD in the United
States.  But I also know that OSM is not merely an unorganized
collection of facts.  Certain excerpts of it are, but not the
entirety.

Finally, to explain my point, unorganized collections of facts are PD
in the United States *regardless of whether or not you try to pretend
they aren't by slapping the ODbL on top of them*.  A contract is not
binding upon people who have not accepted it, and there is absolutely
no way OSM can force everyone who gets a copy of OSM to accept a
contract.  Even if they forced everyone who downloads OSM from
planet.openstreetmap.org to click on "I agree", they can't stop third
parties from running mirrors where there is no such click-through.

> Failing that, have a read of the previous conversations on this subject that
> you have participated in on this list and let us know what you are
> pretending not to understand this time.

What subject would that be?  Can you narrow my search?  Or were you
just misunderstanding my point?



More information about the legal-talk mailing list