On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:18 AM, Frederik Ramm <[email protected]> wrote:
> However, one thing you should perhaps consider is this argument of "project > sanity": We're all in this together. It's no good having a license that has > different effects in different countries. And that is one of the exact problems with the ODbL. Under the ODbL, in some jurisdictions the database is protected by database, copyright, and contract law. In other jurisdictions, it's protected only by contract law. In the United States, which is a prominent example of "anything goes", the ODbL would likely not hold up in a court of law anyway. First of all, unless there's some sort of "click-through", there's no real indication of assent. Even if you want to argue that the TOS is binding (and that's probably going to be an expensive argument), it's only binding if the site you download the data from has the TOS. Then, once you prove that there's a contract in place, it's effectively useless. You can't sue for injunctive relief, that's just not a remedy available for breach of contract. You could try to sue for specific performance, but it's highly unlikely you'd get it. So you're left with a suit under a state law breach of contract and you get actual damages, likely nothing. OSM absolutely *should* be released under a license which is treated as similarly as possible in all jurisdictions. That license is CC0.
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
