On 17 April 2011 15:17, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> wrote: > The point still stands. Granting rights to a central body (but not > your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open > communities.
They also aren't generally the most popular, just like BSD lags behind Linux, which could be due to the strong sharing clauses of the license. > I personally have not used the reason you state to promote OSM over Neither have I, but others have as comments to that extent were on the wiki. > GMM. I have always emphasized in my outreach that you can use OSM data > in more ways than GMM's data (such as using OSM data to create Garmin > maps--Garmin is the most popular PND brand in my country). That's hardly a reason, if GMM was published for personal use someone is bound to be able to convert it to garmin format just like others created tools to use OSM data on Garmin devices. > I understand though that some may have used the "no central body" as a > promotional banner, but that is a really poor method since the FSF and > ASF has had copyright assignment and rights grants respectively for a > long time now. The FSF have 20 years of not only expressing strong opinions about moral aspects of licensing, but they have stuck to their guns, something that the OSM-F hasn't done, SteveC states at various times in the past he will only support share a like licenses, yet the ODBL and CT both weaken this stance considerably. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
