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

[Ed Avis]

Francis Davey <fjmd1a at ...> writes:

>>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?

>Well, you'd have to ask ODbL designers about that. My understanding is
>that its the best that can be done to make the level of protection of
>database style rights more uniform. Some jurisdictions have a right in
>databases, others don't (or protect them much less). So the idea is to
>require licensees under ODbL to agree contractually to respect a right
>which, in some jurisdictions, would apply by default anyway.

Right, that is the intention, but if 'further down the chain' there is no
contractual relationship anyway, then is it effective?  To me it seems more
like wishful thinking to suppose a contractual agreement can be conjured up
to add new restrictions not supported by rights that exist in a jurisdiction.

It may be 'the best that can be done' as you say, but if even the best is pretty
wobbly, it might as well be left out.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>