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

[Matt Amos]

On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com> wrote:
>> therefore, if someone downloads if from
>> them, the license notice is intact and they implicitly agree to it as
>> soon as they are simultaneously aware of it and performing acts
>> governed by it.
>
> By continuing to read this email, you agree to the following terms and
> conditions.  If you disagree, you must delete this email immediately.  Your
> continued reading indicates your acceptance....
>
> Kind of like that?

except that by continuing to read i wasn't exercising any rights
governed by your license. ;-)

>> this is very similar to how copyright licenses (e.g: GPL) work - you
>> don't have to click-though a license to get the source code. a notice
>> about the license is included in the source code. you implicitly agree
>> to the license as soon as you are simultaneously aware of it and
>> perform acts governed by it (redistribution of modified source code or
>> binaries). it's perfectly possible to obtain, modify, compile and
>> distribute a GPL'ed application without seeing the GPL itself once,
>> yet it still applies.
>
> The GPL, like CC-BY-SA, is based on copyright law.  The GPL, like CC-BY-SA,
> is a unilateral conditional waiver of rights (you may do X, provided that
> you do Y).  The ODbL, on the other hand, is set up as a bilateral exchange
> of covenants (we promise X, you promise Y).  That is, in fact, the whole
> point of the ODbL.  It attempts to reach, through contract law, into
> jurisdictions where copyright law does not apply.

yes, that is the point of ODbL. but it attempts to reach where
database law doesn't apply.

cheers,

matt