On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:23 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:15 PM, Matt Amos <zerebub...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:36 AM, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> 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.
i'm sorry you feel that way. >> 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? the agreement doesn't kick in from the reading of the license, it kicks in when you do something that only the license would permit you to do. in the case of a "browser wrap", that is downloading the data. in the case that you already have the file, it's continuing to use it after you become aware of the terms. remember, rights are default: deny. the fact that you have access to the data at all implies that there is a license which you should be aware of. >> 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? the data would contain a link to and notice about the license. if someone obtains the database from OSM they must maintain the license notice, as required by ODbL. 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. 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. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
