[OSM-legal-talk] Best license for future tiles?

[Ed Avis]

Francis Davey <fjmd1a at ...> writes:

>>this is in my view one of the big problems with
>>the licence: it's so vague and complicated that if you ask three people about
>>what it permits you get four answers.
>
>One problem is that where there is no contractual relationship (as
>there wouldn't be further down the chain of derivation/copying) the
>extent to which ODbL is enforceable depends on what (if any) IP rights
>a particular jurisdiction recognises in the licensed work and how that
>jurisdiction treats them.

>From my point of view, I think that is a feature, not a bug.  The extent of
copyright, database right and other laws is best decided by individual countries
and it is IMHO misguided to try to override the compromise between public and
private interests made by a particular society.

However that's just opinion.  More interesting is your remark about 'no
contractual relationship' - which makes one ask, why have the attempted
contract-law stuff in the ODbL at all?  Could it not be stripped out?
An ODbL-lite with the contract law stuff removed is a licence I could live with.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>