<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hi,</p>
<p>maybe I'm not reading too attentively, but what I understand is
that the contract is about licensing, while the copyright on what
the contract calls 'Your Contents' stays mine.</p>
<p>that is what I thought when I wrote:</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">if you say that "© OpenStreetMap" is the
same as "© OpenStreetMap contributors", I'm fine.
</blockquote>
I have the impression you are confusing copyright ownership with
licensing and authorization to sub-licensing. <br>
</p>
<p>
<blockquote type="cite">Legally, the copyright actually belongs to
the Foundation (and individual contributors retain their
copyright, but grant usage and distribution rights to the OSMF).</blockquote>
somehow I keep finding your parenthesized explanations confusing.
if you're right in your out-of-parentheses statement, I would
probably reconsider my position as contributor.<br>
</p>
<p>MF<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 17/04/2020 09:36, Martin
Koppenhoefer wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CABPTjTATyd6on3sgv4L84zGJW+vaN8goMfnkDTQpNTKvWYWDyQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">Am Fr., 17. Apr. 2020 um
15:37 Uhr schrieb Mario Frasca <<a
href="mailto:mario@anche.no" moz-do-not-send="true">mario@anche.no</a>>:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid
rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">but if you argue that
OpenStreetMap is owned by OpenStreetMapFoundation <br>
and that "© OpenStreetMap" means "©
OpenStreetMapFoundation", then I'd <br>
rather stick to the current situation, where it's very clear
that the <br>
copyright belongs to contributors, be it as individuals or
as a community.</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I tried to look at the legal situation (morally, I agree
that OpenStreetMap is more about the community than
OpenStreetMapFoundation, indeed that's an unmentioned reason
why I suggested OpenStreetMap and not the foundation to be
credited also in an updated version.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Legally, the copyright actually belongs to the Foundation
(and individual contributors retain their copyright, but grant
usage and distribution rights to the OSMF). It is written in
the contract you have signed with the OSMF (contributor
terms). If you download data from OpenStreetMap, your licensor
is the OSMF. You have authorized the OSMF to distribute the
content on their behalf, and to pursue copyright
infringements.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>"You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free,
non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act
that is restricted by copyright, database right or any related
right over anything within the Contents, whether in the
original medium or any other. These rights explicitly include
commercial use, and do not exclude any field of endeavour.
These rights include, without limitation, the right to
sub-license the work through multiple tiers of sub-licensees
and to sue for any copyright violation directly connected with
OSMF's rights under these terms. To the extent allowable under
applicable local laws and copyright conventions, You also
waive and/or agree not to assert against OSMF or its licensees
any moral rights that You may have in the Contents."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>There are also some conditions of course, "OSMF agrees that
it may only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a
database and only under the terms of one or more of the
following licences: ODbL 1.0 for the database and DbCL 1.0 for
the individual contents of the database; CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such
other free and open licence as may from time to time be chosen
by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at least a
2/3 majority vote of active contributors."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And of course in 5 you have mutually agreed, that "except
as set forth herein, You reserve all right, title, and
interest in and to Your Contents."</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><a
href="https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms</a>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The excerpts are copied from the current version 1.2.4. <br>
</div>
<div>There isn't much information (or I didn't find it) to which
specific version one has agreed, nor is the text of former
versions publicly visible, but AFAIK OSMF has internally a
trace of who has agreed to which version, and of course people
will have their own copies on their pc.</div>
<div>I don't recall agreeing to any updated versions of the
Contributor Terms after 2012, and I guess nobody has, you
always agreed to the current version when you signed up (or at
the license change in 2012), so your contract with the OSMF
may be slightly different.<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Cheers</div>
<div>Martin<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>