On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 4:02 AM, Matt Amos <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 6, 2009 at 3:25 AM, 80n <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 5, 2009 at 11:41 PM, SteveC <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> On Dec 5, 2009, at 4:25 PM, Ulf Lamping wrote: > >> > Remember: Steve is the head of the OSMF, so this is the OSMF > Chairman's > >> > position about other peoples opinions when they don't share his own > >> > opinion. > >> > >> I'm not allowed to have opinions? > >> > >> > Is this the organization you want to hand over the license of your OSM > >> > data? > >> > >> The OSMF wont own the data and you know it. > >> > > The Contributor Terms contains the following clause: "You hereby grant > to > > OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, > > non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is > > restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the > > original medium or any other." > > > > That's pretty much as close as you can get to owning a piece of data. > > out of interest, would you prefer that it were worded like CC BY-SA? > > "[you] hereby grant[s] [OSMF] a worldwide, royalty-free, > non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable > copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below: > [list of rights covered by the Berne convention.] The above rights may > be exercised in all media and formats whether now known or hereafter > devised. The above rights include the right to make such modifications > as are technically necessary to exercise the rights in other media and > formats." > > as far as i can see the contributor terms definition says the same > thing, except ... ...except the context is different. With CC BY-SA you are giving everyone the same rights. With the Contributor Terms the only one to have those rights is the OSMF. > it's more concise. we strived for readability and > brevity in the contributor terms, given that it will be read by so > many people. do you think it would have been better to go for the > longer version as CC BY-SA does? > > just as CC BY-SA contains limitations on the exercise of those rights > (BY and SA), so does the contributor terms - initially only a release > under CC BY-SA and ODbL, subject to a vote of the OSMF membership and > "active contributors" if the need arises to change that to a different > "free and open" license. > > cheers, > > matt >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
