[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Progressing OSM to a new dataLicence regime

[Andy Robinson (blackadder)]

Frederik Ramm wrote:
>Sent: 07 February 2008 9:22 AM
>To: Licensing and other legal discussions.
>Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Progressing OSM to a new
>dataLicence regime
>
>Hi,
>
>> There are negative sides to a copyright assignment. A) We probably
>> wouldn't get one from e.g. AND or MASSGIS (although I'm speculating). B)
>> It would mean the scenario I mentioned to Frederik, where a commercial
>> company could sue a license violator, couldn't happen, because they
>> would no longer be the copyright holder.
>
>C) the foundation would become hugely more important, and with that the
>decision-making processes inside the Foundation and so on would suddenly
>be under much more scrutiny than they are now, and we'd be spending 90%
>of our time squabbling over how a certain vote might have ended
>differently if only this and that. Not good. I like the Foundation to be
>as unimportant as possible.
>

Agreed, the OSMF should only be the guiding light in these matters.

Cheers

Andy

>Bye
>Frederik
>
>_______________________________________________
>legal-talk mailing list
>legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
>http://lists.openstreetmap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/legal-talk