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

[Gervase Markham]

Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Gervase Markham wrote:
> | Robert (Jamie) Munro wrote:
> |> It's been proposed by me several times in the past. I think it's
> |> essential. I don't know of a similar major project that doesn't do some
> |> kind of assignment. Wikipedia is the nearest, but Wikipedia is a
> |> collection of articles that all stand on their own.
> 
> I didn't make it clear that I want a non-exclusive, non-revokable
> license to the foundation, rather than "assignment" as such. This is
> important, for example, for the case of map data collected as a side
> product of collecting some commercial data. There's no question that you
> can still use your data for whatever you want.
> 
> | Can you name some which do?
> 
> ~ * MusicBrainz.org
> ~ * voxforge.org
> 
> Then there's lots of code projects like Mozilla, apache, etc. and also
> semi-free projects like dmoz.org, peoples map etc.

I think I can speak with some authority when I say that Mozilla does not 
require copyright assignment of any sort :-) Apache requires the type of 
"rights sharing" you mention.

> | But surely a license is a codification of "what everyone agrees it
> | should be allowed for"?
> 
> In theory yes, but based on how long we've been discussing this issue,
> it can never be in practise.

Surely the length of discussion is symptomatic of the fact that there is 
actually some disagreement about "what everyone agrees it should be 
allowed for" (your phrase)?

> | 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).
> 
> We could handle large data donations specially. 

All contributors are equal, but some are more equal than others?

> How do we know that AND and MASSGIS will support our current proposed
> license change?

I assume that the OSMF has sounded them out. They have told us, at 
least, that the removal of SA would cause a rethink, which implies that 
there has been communication.

> | 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.
> 
> If they are suing over a part of the data they contributed, they would
> be joint copyright holders. They would be entitled to damages along with
> the foundation. 

Actually, under the scheme you propose above, they would not be joint 
copyright holders - copyright would remain with the original 
contributor. But yes, if we did what you propose, then the suing would 
still be possible.

Gerv