On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 10:36 PM, Matt Amos <zerebub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 1:59 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > > I'm not sure if it's enforceable or not. And I've asked on the legal > list > > (so far without an answer) whether or not agreeing to the Contributor > Terms > > requires also agreeing to the ODbL in ways that purport to reach beyond > > copyright law (which, here in Florida, is not very far). > > it's my understanding that agreeing to the contributor terms doesn't > require agreeing to anything that "purports" to reach beyond copyright > law. the license was written by a lawyer well-versed in US IP law and > reviewed by another working (pro bono) on behalf of the OSMF who is > also well-versed in US IP law. > > there are contractual components to the ODbL, but these are necessary > as several lawyers have expressed doubt that copyright law alone can > protect OSM data, especially in the US. for more information, please > read the proposal document: > > http://www.osmfoundation.org/wiki/File:License_Proposal.pdf > I've read that. I don't agree to the ODbL. I will not agree to the ODbL. Therefore, I am not bound to the contract, and I can do anything I want with the OSM database. That's the only way I can stay on the same playing field with all the non-OSM-contributors, who likewise have not agreed to the ODbL and therefore are not bound by the ODbL. I assume that means I have to stop using the website once the TOS goes up. If so, oh well, I'll download the data from a mirror site without the TOS. > I'd be willing to release my contributions into the public domain. But I > > won't agree to further restrictions on the OSM database which go beyond > > copyright law. Someone else pointed out that that's what Google does. > > Yeah, I thought OSM was supposed to be better than that. > > well, that's unfortunate. it would really help if we could understand > why you don't feel you could agree to the contractual parts of the > ODbL. they are there for a good reason and weren't included > frivolously. > I don't see any good reason why I should agree to the contractual parts of the ODbL. What's in it for me? I get to contribute to OSM? Sorry, not worth it. > In any case, I see little chance of the switch being made under the terms > > outlined. Between people who refuse the Contributor Terms and people who > > just never respond, there's likely going to be *way* too much to delete. > > we would obviously like to minimise the number of people who don't > want to agree. I suspect the number who don't respond at all will far outweigh both the number who agree and the number who disagree combined. And if the TOS goes up at the same time as the request to agree or disagree, I'll probably be one of them. > we would like to be as inclusive as possible, but as > several people have said already, we've been through a number of > consultation periods, so we thought we'd ironed out most of the major > objections. > I see a lot of unanswered objections. Probably the biggest one is that the ODbL is written in a way which disallows injunctive relief, and therefore is effectively useless. please remember, we've been working for a while to find a license for > OSM which works, and protects the data we've all worked on. Personally, I'd vote for CC0. > ODbL does this much better than CC BY-SA, which likely doesn't work at all > in > some jurisdictions. I really don't understand this argument. CC-BY-SA doesn't provide a license in jurisdictions where the content isn't copyrighted. But there's no need to provide a license in jurisdictions where the content isn't copyrighted. I always took the OSM's release of data under CC-BY-SA to mean: here are some things you can do; if you live in certain jurisdictions, like the United States, you can probably do them anyway, but for those of you who don't, we're letting you do them as well. > ODbL has very much the same license elements as CC > BY-SA - it's an attribution and share-alike license. there are some > differences, mostly in the underlying law used to enforce it and the > way it concentrates on share-alike for the data, not the produced > works. > The underlying law used to enforce it is what I have a problem with.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
