5 ms·

It's not really clear to me what the problem is. Doesn't the Open Database License applies everywhere, brexit or not? I never thought that where an "open source

It's not really clear to me what the problem is. Doesn't the Open Database License applies everywhere, brexit or not? I never thought that where an "open source" project is physically located as any impact on the license it uses.

rich_sasha 5y ago
I think if someone abroad is abusing your license, the nuclear option is to sue them in their own country. If that country deems that there's nothing wrong in what is being done, then at the very least you are on a much weaker standing. Whereas if, from first principles, the rights of the license holder are recognised, then it's much easier to have your rights enforced.
bildung 5y ago
It's in the article: One “important reason”, Rischard said, was the failure of the UK and EU to agree on mutual recognition of database rights. While both have an agreement to recognise copyright protections, that only covers work which is creative in nature.
matthewmorgan 5y ago
I don't understand the problem either. If they're worried someone in the EU is going to clone their database, moving there just means someone in the UK can now do it. And Americans have apparently been free to do it from the start.
- danieldk 5y ago
  The EU is a much larger market than the UK. If you are an international company that cloned their database, not offering your product in the UK because you could be sued is a loss. However, not being able to offer your product in the EU is a much bigger loss. So, such companies are much more likely to comply with the license if OpenStreetMap is protected by EU laws than by UK laws.
  - matthewmorgan 5y ago
    The EU is far from being a single market as far as services are concerned
matsemann 5y ago
The license of a project grants the consumer additional rights they didn't have before. Like allowing someone to use your copyrighted code (which they normally couldn't) under certain rules. The license and what it stipulates is useless if what it protects can be freely obtained other ways not binding one to the license agreement.
mpweiher 5y ago
For a license to have meaning, the original work needs to be protected, for example by copyright. If the work isn't protected by copyright, you can still write that license, but you have no means of enforcing said license.
- sgc 5y ago
  Do we have precedent for this? Can you truly not sue if you enter an agreement with someone to provide them with data that restricts their rights to use it, but the data is actually in the public domain? What about implicit agreements like TOS on a website? These are pertinent concerns for which I have never found a definitive answer.
  - user5994461 5y ago
    The first precedent passed in French appeal court and European court just a few months ago. I shall probably do a blog post to cover the case or nobody ever will. It acknowledges software license (the GPL in that case) as a contract granting obligation to both parties and enforced it as a contract. The claims around copyright/counterfeit were pretty much dismissed (you can't pursue on both copyright and contract grounds in France because they are different legal responsibilities). Since it's possible to make contracts on pretty much anything between two companies (but not for consumers), there's a chance that the openstreetmap contract has grounds irrelevant of the database rights.
    - stereo 5y ago
      Yes, the ODbL is indeed built like that.
    - mpweiher 5y ago
      Interesting. It still doesn't make sense to me, because even if it is a contract, then the only reason for me to enter into that contract is because I have to do so in order to use the software (or database), due to the fact that it is protected by copyright. If the software/data is not protected by copyright, I am free to use it without entering into any contract with anyone. Reviewing the OSM Legal FAQ, it appears that they are very much based on copyright and licensing. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ
stereo 5y ago
It applies everywhere. The protection in it is in multiple ways, and the database protection has been quite useful in the past. It's always good to have more than one string to your bow. Database protection is the biggest reason for moving, but not the only one.

rich_sasha 5y ago

I think if someone abroad is abusing your license, the nuclear option is to sue them in their own country. If that country deems that there's nothing wrong in what is being done, then at the very least you are on a much weaker standing. Whereas if, from first principles, the rights of the license holder are recognised, then it's much easier to have your rights enforced.

bildung 5y ago

It's in the article: One “important reason”, Rischard said, was the failure of the UK and EU to agree on mutual recognition of database rights. While both have an agreement to recognise copyright protections, that only covers work which is creative in nature.

matthewmorgan 5y ago

I don't understand the problem either. If they're worried someone in the EU is going to clone their database, moving there just means someone in the UK can now do it. And Americans have apparently been free to do it from the start.

danieldk 5y ago
The EU is a much larger market than the UK. If you are an international company that cloned their database, not offering your product in the UK because you could be sued is a loss. However, not being able to offer your product in the EU is a much bigger loss. So, such companies are much more likely to comply with the license if OpenStreetMap is protected by EU laws than by UK laws.
- matthewmorgan 5y ago
  The EU is far from being a single market as far as services are concerned

matsemann 5y ago

The license of a project grants the consumer additional rights they didn't have before. Like allowing someone to use your copyrighted code (which they normally couldn't) under certain rules. The license and what it stipulates is useless if what it protects can be freely obtained other ways not binding one to the license agreement.

mpweiher 5y ago

For a license to have meaning, the original work needs to be protected, for example by copyright. If the work isn't protected by copyright, you can still write that license, but you have no means of enforcing said license.

sgc 5y ago
Do we have precedent for this? Can you truly not sue if you enter an agreement with someone to provide them with data that restricts their rights to use it, but the data is actually in the public domain? What about implicit agreements like TOS on a website? These are pertinent concerns for which I have never found a definitive answer.
- user5994461 5y ago
  The first precedent passed in French appeal court and European court just a few months ago. I shall probably do a blog post to cover the case or nobody ever will. It acknowledges software license (the GPL in that case) as a contract granting obligation to both parties and enforced it as a contract. The claims around copyright/counterfeit were pretty much dismissed (you can't pursue on both copyright and contract grounds in France because they are different legal responsibilities). Since it's possible to make contracts on pretty much anything between two companies (but not for consumers), there's a chance that the openstreetmap contract has grounds irrelevant of the database rights.
  - stereo 5y ago
    Yes, the ODbL is indeed built like that.
  - mpweiher 5y ago
    Interesting. It still doesn't make sense to me, because even if it is a contract, then the only reason for me to enter into that contract is because I have to do so in order to use the software (or database), due to the fact that it is protected by copyright. If the software/data is not protected by copyright, I am free to use it without entering into any contract with anyone. Reviewing the OSM Legal FAQ, it appears that they are very much based on copyright and licensing. https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Legal_FAQ

stereo 5y ago

It applies everywhere. The protection in it is in multiple ways, and the database protection has been quite useful in the past. It's always good to have more than one string to your bow. Database protection is the biggest reason for moving, but not the only one.