On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Matt Amos <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Anthony <[email protected]> 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?
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
