axa, I'm not sure I follow you, but I think I can respond to:
>I also support research projects but I cannot agree
with TOS that "permits" replications without any
It's called "freedom." Some people are pretty passionate about it, because of their moral or philosophical beliefs.
>Did DMOZ take in any way action against this practices?
No, as long as you comply with the license (which basically says "please use this however you want, just let people know where you got it.") DMOZ promises NOT to take action.
This may have disadvantages, both social and technical. It has advantages also:
-- It attracts editors (who freely provide services that would otherwise be impossible or impractical to obtain.)
-- It provides valuable data to startup search engines (like Google or Alexa) and promises NOT to impede their creative work with technological, procedural, or legal obstacles.-- It doesn't impose the high cost of "taking action" on the project community, thus freeing up resources that can be used for pressing needs (like new servers...;) )
Compare, say, the RIAA, which annually spends millions of dollars impeding the flow of content, with the direct result of greatly impoverishing everyone -- artists and consumers alike -- while providing (comparatively) small profits to a few greedy ambulance-chasers and bean-counters. The ODP will NOT go there. Read its social contract (which, by the way, the editing community vehemently insisted that AOL provide).