[OSM-talk] [Osmf-talk] my views on the ODbL

[Anthony]

On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> > Now, when I
> > download the OSM database from that mirror site, what binds me to the
> ODbL?
> > Absolutely nothing.
>
> your email here proves you are aware of the terms of such a download. :-)
>

The terms are not yet in place, and should they be put into place, I don't
plan on using the website.


> for people who haven't so publicly demonstrated their awareness of the
> license, we will be showing (or linking to) the license wherever ODbL
> data can be downloaded and placing license metadata into the data
> downloaded from the OSM site, using dublin core definitions or
> similar.


The fact that someone is shown a license doesn't mean that they agree to
it.  C'mon, I can add a "license" to the bottom of this email, does that
mean that anyone who reads it thereby agrees to it?

several courts have upheld such "browser wrap" licenses. please see
> richard's wonderfully complete email here
>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/osmf-talk/2009-December/000479.html
>

I already explained the difference between them and OSM.  If I download the
OSM database from the OSM website, that's one thing.  But how can I be bound
by the terms of the OSM website if I download the database from some other
website?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091205/a15b123c/attachment.html>