On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 21:30:22 +1000, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The difference here is companies like Teleatlas would sue someone for > massive damages if the contract was breached in the first place, which > would be OSM-F's only relief, OSM-F won't have a contract with any 3rd > party that may download data from (I like Rob's example better) > picking up a copy left on a bus.
The FSF have found that people almost always prefer complying with licences to being sued for damages and compliance. I don't see why it would be different for OSM(F). >> This is the same about anything using contract law. Someone breaking the >> contract and redistributing it doesn't remove the contract that is given > > Contracts aren't licenses, they don't transfer like copyright does... Yes, a lot of our experience and assumptions based on copyright licences don't apply to thinking about contract-based """licences""". A licence gives you extra permission that you would not otherwise have. So if I find a copy of (for example) Wikipedia or GNU/Linux on a bus, I do not under copyright law have permission to do very much with it. My only legal defence for copying or adapting it beyond the limits of fair use/fair dealing is the copyright licence accompanying it. By comparison a contract imposes extra restrictions on you if you agree to it. In the absence of Copyright or Database Right on a data(base) dump that I receive, I would be able to do whatever I like with it including using contract law to prevent anyone else from doing whatever they like when they receive it from me. (I am not a lawyer, etc.) - Rob. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
