Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How Can OSMF convince me to accept the New CT and ODBL
I believe the question is whether the OSMF should have special rights which
are not available to others.
If you look again at the explanation of the OSMF's role:
It is important to understand that the OpenStreetMap Foundation is not the
same thing as the OpenStreetMap project. The Foundation does not own the
OpenStreetMap data, is not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the
data. Anyone can set up a few servers and host the OSM data using the same
or different software. In this respect the Foundation is an organisation
that performs fundraising in order to provides servers to host the project.
Its role is to support the project, not to control it.
A key point is that 'anyone can set up a few servers and host the OSM data'.
If that is so, then the contributor terms should not need to mention OSMF
specifically - not unless the OSMF is trying to gain rights which others lack.
If a particular licence, be it CC-BY-SA, ODbL or whatever, is considered
suitable for the project then it must grant enough permissions to host a
website with the map, make changes, distribute them further and so on. That
being so, it is not necessary to have additional rights assignment to OSMF or
anyone else.
Some may consider this viewpoint to be quite impractical. However, it is how
the project is working now, and seems to be successful.
I've seen this point discussed many times before. The CT's do not
transfer ownership.
Technically this is true, but the grant of rights is so broad ('any action
restricted by copyright') and the limitations of 'any free and open licence'
and a vote of 'active contributors' are so loosely specified, that it amounts
to almost the same thing in practice.
--
Ed Avis e...@waniasset.com
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How Can OSMF convince me to accept the New CT and ODBL
On 09/12/10 13:27, Ed Avis wrote:
I've seen this point discussed many times before. The CT's do not
transfer ownership.
Technically this is true,
Legally it is true.
but the grant of rights is so broad ('any action
restricted by copyright') and the limitations of 'any free and open licence'
and a vote of 'active contributors' are so loosely specified, that it amounts
to almost the same thing in practice.
What it amounts to is a loss of *control*.
But a proportionate measure of that control is reintroduced through the
open membership of OSMF and the voting mechanism described in the CTs.
- Rob.
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
Re: [OSM-legal-talk] How Can OSMF convince me to accept the New CT and ODBL
On 8 December 2010 21:54, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.grem...@cetest.nl wrote: [snip] 2. Article 3 makes you transfer the ownership (not exclusive) of your entered data to OSMF : That is a Problem !! OSMF is gathering this way the (non exclusive)ownership of OSM as a whole. OSMF is not a community but a foundation/association (company by guarantee in british legal terms) The transfer of ownership is against it own principles But there is no transfer of ownership. All that the CT's do is give OSMF a licence. If you want OSMF to maintain a server hosting OSM data then it needs a licence to do _that_. In practice you want it to be able to license the data (via a sublicence) to other people, otherwise there would be legal obstacles to people using it. The only alternative is to ask contributors to license the world using some compatible licence and then for OSMF to try to be licence transparent as some other sites do (knol for instance). Either way the contributor licenses. The former seems (to me) to be easier and less problematic. Wiki Citation: It is important to understand that the OpenStreetMap Foundation is not the same thing as the OpenStreetMap project. The Foundation does not own the OpenStreetMap data, is not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the data. Anyone can set up a few servers and host the OSM data using the same or different software. In this respect the Foundation is an organisation that performs fundraising in order to provides servers to host the project. Its role is to support the project, not to control it. Try to match article 3 with this wiki citation… This needs to be cleared up. I've seen this point discussed many times before. The CT's do not transfer ownership. What do you advocate? -- Francis Davey ___ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
