2009/12/6 Anthony <o...@inbox.org>: > Might want to check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Click-through_license . A > quick scan finds one case where the license was found unenforceable (because > it was unconscionable), and several where it was found enforceable.
As I said, the judgement I'm thinking of was a few years ago and I don't recall specifics. > I'm not sure what you consider a "click through type agreement", but if > you're including websites which have you click on some equivalent of "I > agree", I can't imagine that could possible be found unenforceable. Without > it, e-commerce could never exist. Actually the basis of commerce, not just e-commerce, is money changing hands, that's why some things like Digium/Asterisk offer a $1 settlement for copyright, the money changing hands is a legally binding contract. > Unlike some others, I'm not angry about it, though. Mr. Lamping analogized > earlier about a gun being to the heads of the contributors. But a better > analogy would be that the OSMF is sticking a gun to its own head when it > says "agree to the changes or we'll pull the trigger". I'm not angry either, just trying to get past the emotive language/statements, logical falecies and figure out the pros and cons of the new licensing to see if such a large change is in my best interest because it's likely going to involve consulting various government bodies to release data under a suitable license after they've just released a lot of data under CC-BY-SA. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk