[OSM-legal-talk] Copyright Assignment
rob at robmyers.org
Fri Jan 1 17:59:21 GMT 2010
On 01/01/10 17:40, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Rob Myers <rob at robmyers.org> wrote:
>> But OSM does not require copyright assignment, so it is not *directly*
> What OSMF requires in the current draft is for you to effectively give up
> your copyright altogether.
That is simply untrue. OSMF requires a broad copyright licence but not
an exclusive one.
> OSMF then copyrights the database as a whole,
> asserts database rights on the database as a whole, and tries to get people
> to enter into a contractual agreement on the database as a whole.
No contributor has produced the entire database, and OSMF has assembled
And since OSMF are using a broad non-exclusive licence on the database,
and you are arguign that for an individual to do this "effectively"
gives up their rights altogether, surely OSMF are "effectively" giving
up *their* rights on the database altogether?
> No, it's not copyright assignment, but it's basically the same thing.
It is not. I've signed copyright assignments, and this ain't basically
the same. Unlike with a copyright assignment, when you contribute to OSM
you retain your (probably imaginary) copyright and you can licence it to
anyone else you like on whatever terms you like.
If the salient point of comparison is meant to be that a third party
gets to licence work that you've produced in-keeping with the principles
that people have agreed to contribute to the project under, then I think
it would be more constructive to try and discuss why that is felt to be
bad in itself.
> you agree to the contributor terms, you can't sue anyone for a license
> violation, but the OSMF can.
Which licence, and what are the advantages to suing in a personal
capacity rather than having OSMF do so?
More information about the legal-talk