On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 5:57 AM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Matt Amos <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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. > > By continuing to read this email, you agree to the following terms and > conditions. If you disagree, you must delete this email immediately. Your > continued reading indicates your acceptance.... > > Kind of like that?
except that by continuing to read i wasn't exercising any rights governed by your license. ;-) >> 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. > > The GPL, like CC-BY-SA, is based on copyright law. The GPL, like CC-BY-SA, > is a unilateral conditional waiver of rights (you may do X, provided that > you do Y). The ODbL, on the other hand, is set up as a bilateral exchange > of covenants (we promise X, you promise Y). That is, in fact, the whole > point of the ODbL. It attempts to reach, through contract law, into > jurisdictions where copyright law does not apply. yes, that is the point of ODbL. but it attempts to reach where database law doesn't apply. cheers, matt _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
