So you are saying that when we switched from CC to ODbL, the bellow
quote was not true?
Both licenses are “By Attribution” and “Share Alike”.
https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Historic/We_Are_Changing_The_License#What_are_the_main_differences_between_the_old_and_the_new_license.3F
Also the license is clear, anyone that views, i don't have to interact
to acknowledge the notice.
Às 18:08 de 09/08/2019, Kathleen Lu escreveu:
Guidelines by the licensor
On legal advice, *what a Licensor says carries weight with users
of our data and, potentially, to a judge*. A court would make a
final decision on the issue, however we hope these guidelines are
helpful to *avoid *disputes arising in the first place and can be
considered by the courts in coming to their verdict.
from https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Community_Guidelines
Nuno, you are quoting this like it's the law, but what you have quoted
here isn't the *law*, it's what *OSMF* thinks *might* happen and what
motivates OSMF to put out guidelines. Frankly, OSMF can choose to
change the language you have quoted as a part of changing the guidelines!
Under the law, the licensor's opinion, as one party to the contract,
is taken into consideration. However, it is *not* the only thing that
matters. The words of the licence matter more, and if there is a
conflict between what the licensor thinks and what the licence says,
the words of the licence will control. In that case, the licensor is
simply "wrong" (and there are plenty of cases where that was the end
result).
You are right that we hope to avoid disputes by setting out reasonable
guidelines, but if OSMF sets out guidelines that are unreasonable and
not tied to the language of the licence, then no one, either users of
the data or judges, will listen to OSMF, and, under the law, rightly so.
_______________________________________________
talk mailing list
talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
