On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Florian Lohoff <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 01:17:46PM +0800, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote: >> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM, John Smith <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > On 17 April 2011 14:39, Eugene Alvin Villar <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why >> >> should it be a big problem for OSM contributors (setting aside the >> >> desire to import other data for which the contributor has no right to >> >> sublicense)? >> > >> > Apache has been a mature project for quite some time, what you should >> > be asking instead is why did others go for GPL for their httpd. >> > >> > In any case this sort of clause is most common with projects like >> > google map maker, In fact until recently this was a reason used to >> > promote OSM, the fact that it didn't use the same terms as google map >> > maker. >> >> 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. > > But has been a major point of problems in the past. Have a look at > the GCC issues. Patches will not be submitted because a transfer of > copyright is a no go for some.
FSF, owner of GCC, has copyright assignment. On the other hand, OSMF's CT only has a rights grant (contributor still retains copyright on his own data), which is the same thing as what ASF's agreement asks. So this should be less problematic than the FSF situation. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
