On 01/01/10 16:15, Gervase Markham wrote: > > If the OSMF has the right to do "any act that is restricted by > copyright" then they effectively have a joint copyright ownership. > Except perhaps that they can't sue for copyright violation, although (as > the article notes) that's not usually a big factor. >
OSMF do not effectively have joint copyright ownership, what they have is a remarkably broad non-exclusive copyright licence. They cannot assert any rights against you as the co-holder of the copyright because they are not and you are not co-holders of the copyright. You are the sole copyright holder and licensor, they are one possible licensee. It's important to be precise about this kind of thing because otherwise people will draw incorrect inferences. > If you read it, you will see that it discusses the effects on a > community of having copyright assignment. > Which we all agree that OSM does not have... "Copyright assignment" in this context means signing a form that says "I hereby exclusively assign my copyright in work X to organization Y". Like the FSF do for GNU. This is not like non-exclusively licencing your work for OSM or Facebook. > The article lists both pros and cons, and says there are fewer cons for > a non-profit than for a commercial company. The moral panic around copyright assignment makes much less sense for well-protected nonprofits, yes. > I am not quoting it here > because I agree with everything in it, or because it "supports my case" > (whatever "my case" is). I'm putting it here because I think it's an > interesting and relevant point of view. > But OSM does not require copyright assignment, so it is not *directly* relevant. - Rob. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
