[OSM-legal-talk] License Cut-over and critical mass

[Ian Sergeant]

Liz <edodd at billiau.net> wrote:

> Where I live a contract has to be agreed to by both parties, is not valid
if
> signed under duress and is not transferable without agreement.
> So the copy left on a train (popular with UK politicians) has no
> contract

The English and Australian law is very similar when it comes to privity of
contract.

The statutory provisions that run counter to it are a confirmation of legal
developments in insurance etc, to enforce claims by people who benefit
under a contract, but may not be a party to it.

Given the long established legal tradition and precedent for privity of
contract in both countries, I suspect it would be a very brave legal
advisor who would rely on contract law to enforce rights against a third
party.

Hence the triple whammy.

Really, I think the lawyers drafting the new licence have fulfilled their
brief, in using every method at their disposal to enforce the rights in as
many jurisdictions as possible.  DB right will likely work in the EU.
Copyright will likely work in Oz.  The U.S. was always going to be a
challenge.

The question for the community, of course, is whether the legal complexity
is really justified given the scale of the problem.  Does OSMF really exist
to take people to court and push the legal boundaries in this area?  Or are
we better just sticking to a licence that clearly states our intention and
probably has just enough clout to make MegaMap Inc think twice before
basing their business model on developing OSM data and giving nothing back?

Ian.