[OSM-talk] [Announce] OSMF license change vote has started

Anthony osm at inbox.org
Sun Dec 6 14:17:26 GMT 2009


On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> However, one thing you should perhaps consider is this argument of "project
> sanity": We're all in this together. It's no good having a license that has
> different effects in different countries.


And that is one of the exact problems with the ODbL.  Under the ODbL, in
some jurisdictions the database is protected by database, copyright, and
contract law.  In other jurisdictions, it's protected only by contract law.

In the United States, which is a prominent example of "anything goes", the
ODbL would likely not hold up in a court of law anyway.  First of all,
unless there's some sort of "click-through", there's no real indication of
assent.  Even if you want to argue that the TOS is binding (and that's
probably going to be an expensive argument), it's only binding if the site
you download the data from has the TOS.  Then, once you prove that there's a
contract in place, it's effectively useless.  You can't sue for injunctive
relief, that's just not a remedy available for breach of contract.  You
could try to sue for specific performance, but it's highly unlikely you'd
get it.  So you're left with a suit under a state law breach of contract and
you get actual damages, likely nothing.

OSM absolutely *should* be released under a license which is treated as
similarly as possible in all jurisdictions.  That license is CC0.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20091206/3517b3b7/attachment.html>


More information about the talk mailing list