Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Click-through
Hi, Rob Myers wrote: In the US, the FSF are very careful to say that the GPL is a license, not a contract. The proposed ODbL, on the other hand, is very careful to point out that it wants to be a license as well as a contract... so maybe that's not the best path to go down then? Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Click-through
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Frederik Ramm wrote: Rob Myers wrote: In the US, the FSF are very careful to say that the GPL is a license, not a contract. The proposed ODbL, on the other hand, is very careful to point out that it wants to be a license as well as a contract... so maybe that's not the best path to go down then? I don't know but it's something to consider given the fact that the license will have global reach. - - Rob. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkj7OmQACgkQCZbRMCZZBfbJVwCeP4bZsCPwaVdtXH91xJyg/J3p 7t0AoILswT9JtTh+eLy5uMWY14tUU4At =MM18 -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Click-through
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 11:26:21PM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote: Frederik Ramm wrote: So if we can't get rid of the click-through is not the question. Replace it by if we cannot find a license that works without clicktrough. Well, there ain't none. Sorry, I'm over-simplifying. But the question is really simple, it's just the answer that's complicated. In some jurisdictions you have statutory protection for geodata under copyright law and, sometimes, neighbouring rights (e.g. EU database law). So everything's easy. In other jurisdictions, you have to rely, to a greater or lesser extent, on contract. And there's no clever wording, no find a licence, that can get around that. Usage of the database is regulated by statute, by contract, or by judicious application of a baseball bat; they're the only options. Our data, along with that of every geodata company in the world, will be made available in contract-biased jurisdictions (like the US). Does TeleAtlas require click-through to work? No. Does Navteq? No. No, they don't require click-through, they require a signed agreement. Can you get Navteq data anywhere without that? So does ODBL? No. Come on. Our case is not comparable with any closed license, because anybody can use our data and re-publish it. So that puts the burden on all those re-publishers to make sure that their downloaders read (and maybe click-through) the license. Lets for a moment assume that we don't need click-through. OSM posts terms of use. I download the planet file and post it on my web site for download. I forget to put any terms of use there. Person X downloads data from me. Never saw the terms of use. I am probably in breach of contract because I made it available without showing the terms of use. But X isn't, because he never saw it. Does X have a valid license to use the data? The license explicitly says that if somebody is in breach of the license the people downstream from him are not and can still use the data. Ups. So even if we are willing to take the risk and not use a click-through the whole contract thing falls apart. There is a good reason why copyright and the European database directive were invented, namely to cover this case where contract law alone is not enough. It's all about appetite for risk. OSMF some time last year took a view, subject to consultation, that click-through would improve enforceability without a deleterious effect on usability. You disagree. That's fine. On balance, and after several months' thought, I think I probably do, too. But Jochen, when you say So I know that it is not enforcable unless both parties have agreed and start quoting Wikipedia, with respect, that's the worst type of barrack-room lawyer. Agreed isn't that simple. Read the summaries of the Register.com vs Verio case I cited earlier. That is a contract being enforced, in a contract-only jurisdiction, _without_ anyone clicking I agree. It's a case relating to repeated extraction from a big database - actually quite similar to OSM. Well, you just citing a single case is also bad form. Yes, in this case the court decided that the terms of use posted on the website are valid. I remember, though can't cite any sources, that there have been different decisions. From what I remember basically the argument was: Terms of use posted on web sites don't mean a thing, because the web would not work if for every link you clicked you'd have first to check whether you agree to the terms of use the web site owner might have posted somewhere. By posting something on the net, you agree that people can lock at it. Now this argument might not hold for a different service like WHOIS or a database API, but that certainly is debatable. Jochen -- Jochen Topf [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.remote.org/jochen/ +49-721-388298 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Click-through
Hi, I see the click-through is still in! Doesn't anybody else think this is completely insane? An Open License with a click through? The license text didn't have anything about click-through, click- wrap, browse-wrap or whatever, it only had the bit about being a contract. If either the current license draft or the brief brief mean that in the future, OSM data may only be offered after displaying a note to the user and requesting him to click ok (or the equivalent in other media), then this would be a significant drawback compared to today's situation - a drawback so big that it might cancel out the advantages. Bye Frederik -- Frederik Ramm ## eMail [EMAIL PROTECTED] ## N49°00'09 E008°23'33 ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Click-through
Frederik Ramm wrote: If either the current license draft or the brief brief mean that in the future, OSM data may only be offered after displaying a note to the user and requesting him to click ok (or the equivalent in other media), then this would be a significant drawback compared to today's situation - a drawback so big that it might cancel out the advantages. For data, ODBL without clickthrough is more enforceable than CC-BY-SA without clickthrough. IMHO of course. cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Click-through
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 9:07 PM, Frederik Ramm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what we want is suitable as some kind of ethics/morality stick we can use to beat people who misbehave, even if they misbehave within the envelope of the law. I hope this thread has something to do with punishing people who commit vandalism... On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 3:04 PM, Jochen Topf [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I what. So all the downloads we have now (planet file, shapes, garmin maps, ...) need click-throughs (and possible user-tracking) in the future? Damn. ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Click-through
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Frederik Ramm wrote: clicktrough is the embodiment of impracticality. Yes. Using the data should require no agreement. Distributing modifications (and by distributing I mean exposing in any way to users not employed or subcontracted by your company or conglomerate) should require and constitute acceptance of the terms of the licence. But I am nervous about using contract law to create a psuedo-copyright for data rather than to neutralize database right on the DB or copyright law on the derived maps. - - Rob. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkj4/FgACgkQCZbRMCZZBfaAhQCfSQ0DmOY1VkxFC1of8cf1MdvF Dl0An0s1UPaEdkgv1r7okyvcUELP89uy =U+pP -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Click-through
Frederik Ramm wrote: So if we can't get rid of the click-through is not the question. Replace it by if we cannot find a license that works without clicktrough. Well, there ain't none. Sorry, I'm over-simplifying. But the question is really simple, it's just the answer that's complicated. In some jurisdictions you have statutory protection for geodata under copyright law and, sometimes, neighbouring rights (e.g. EU database law). So everything's easy. In other jurisdictions, you have to rely, to a greater or lesser extent, on contract. And there's no clever wording, no find a licence, that can get around that. Usage of the database is regulated by statute, by contract, or by judicious application of a baseball bat; they're the only options. Our data, along with that of every geodata company in the world, will be made available in contract-biased jurisdictions (like the US). Does TeleAtlas require click-through to work? No. Does Navteq? No. So does ODBL? No. Come on. It's all about appetite for risk. OSMF some time last year took a view, subject to consultation, that click-through would improve enforceability without a deleterious effect on usability. You disagree. That's fine. On balance, and after several months' thought, I think I probably do, too. But Jochen, when you say So I know that it is not enforcable unless both parties have agreed and start quoting Wikipedia, with respect, that's the worst type of barrack-room lawyer. Agreed isn't that simple. Read the summaries of the Register.com vs Verio case I cited earlier. That is a contract being enforced, in a contract-only jurisdiction, _without_ anyone clicking I agree. It's a case relating to repeated extraction from a big database - actually quite similar to OSM. I'd also point out that, of all the reasons to switch from CC-BY-SA to ODBL, enforceability is certainly no higher than third in my list. :) cheers Richard ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
