[skywal_l]

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.

[bildung]

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.

[rich_sasha]

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.

[matthewmorgan]

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.

[microtonal]

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]

The EU is far from being a single market as far as services are concerned

[matsemann]

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.

[stereo]

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.

[mpweiher]

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]

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]

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.

[mpweiher]

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

[user5994461]

From my perspective.

If the website/data is clearly associated with a contract (a license is a contract), it is in that case:

As a consumer, maybe it doesn't matter because there are many exceptions and loopholes for consumers (similarly to how EULA are void for a variety of reasons).

As a company however, company don't get consumer exceptions and are not given the benefits of the doubt, if a company decides to source data/software from somewhere, the company must have done the groundwork to ensure it can use the data and under what conditions. (In case I'm not clear, that means the company automatically read and agreed with the contract when using the data).

>>> due to the fact that it is protected by copyright.

Careful here. I think you might do the mistake of assuming that it's all about copyright and it might be wrong. (One angle is to try to void the contract, claiming that the data/database can't be subject to copyright and the contract has no ground).

Contracts like the GPL and Openstreetmap are not (only) about copyright. They are full fledged contracts with many pages, many clauses, that put obligation on both parties. They really are complicated contracts. They have a variety of grounds inside and outside of copyright.

The Appeal court and CJEU basically dismissed copyright/counterfeit claims in the first precedent few months ago, saying it's a contractual matter (short version, there's some nuances to it).

>>> Reviewing the OSM Legal FAQ, it appears that they are very much based on copyright and licensing.

License is a US legal concept that doesn't exist in Europe. In Europe there are only contracts, US licenses are interpreted as contracts (and if they don't satisfy the local requirements to form a contract they are void).

[mpweiher]

The problem is before the contract even gets a chance to be applicable.

If the data is there, I can just take and copy it. In fact, in order to display the data in my browser, multiple copies have already ben made.

The only reason that there's a limit to what I am allowed to do with that data, vs. what I can do with that data, is copyright. So if the data is protected under copyright, you can limit my copying and, for example, require me to agree to a contract in order that I may be allowed to copy it (and thus use it).

However, if the data is not protected under copyright, there is nothing stopping me from doing all the things to the data that I can, and so I can just ignore the contract you would like me to agree to.

> Contracts like the GPL and Openstreetmap are not (only) about copyright.

But they are based on copyright. Without copyright protection, nobody needs to enter into that contract.

> License is a US legal concept that doesn't exist in Europe.

This is not true. https://www.brennecke-rechtsanwaelte.de/Lizenzrecht-eine-Ein...

[stereo]

Yes, the ODbL is indeed built like that.