[OSM-legal-talk] [OSM-talk] Unsetting CT flag

[Andreas Perstinger]

On 2010-12-08 18:23, Anthony wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 12:04 PM, Andreas Perstinger
> <andreas.perstinger at gmx.net>  wrote:
>> On 2010-12-08 17:23, Anthony wrote:
>>> The OSMF certainly should
>>> not, because a very small portion of contributors are members of the
>>> OSMF.
>>
>> I agree with you that more contributors should be members of the OSMF
>
> I never said that "more contributors should be members of the OSMF".
> In fact, I don't believe that "more contributors should be members of
> the OSMF".  People should only be members of the OSMF if they care
> about the functions of the OSMF, which is to *support* OSM, not to
> control it.

Sorry wrong wording from me. I understand your point.

> That's probably a key reason for our difference of opinion.  I'm one
> of those individualists that Frederik was complaining about.  I'm
> quite wary of collectivism and the tyranny of the majority.

But then why do you contribute to an community project like OSM? Don't 
misunderstand me, I respect your individualism. But I don't think that a 
collaborative database is possible if every contributor puts his ego 
first. There are always situations when the majority decides which is 
against your opinions (I don't speak here about bigger problems like 
minority rights in a society).

>>> This also has the advantage of creating a
>>> situation where people in some jurisdictions don't have advantages to
>>> people in other jurisdictions.
>>
>> As long as there are no common world rules there will always be differences.
>
> True, which is why I painted this as a secondary advantage, and not
> the primary principle.
>
>>> In any case, who would you say owns the database right *right now*?
>>
>> That's the problem, nobody really knows. I would guess the owner of
>> www.openstreetmap.org.
>
> Wouldn't that be the OSMF?

Whois says Andy Robinson/OSMF.

>>> How do the CTs change this?
>>
>> The make clear that OSMF claims the right for the database.
>
> The 1.0 CT doesn't even mention the database right.

The mention at least the database (First sentence: "Thank you ... 
contributing data ... to the geo-database"; Point 3: "OSMF agrees to use 
or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database ...") which is better 
than the agreement before.

> 1.2 (*) says that
> the individual contributors grant the right to the OSMF, but according
> to you the individual contributors can't have the right in the first
> place.
>
> The situation doesn't seem any more clear to me, except for the fact
> that the individual contributors clearly don't have the right.  But
> you say that's already clear anyway, because it would be impossible.
>
> If it is possible for the individual contributors to hold the database
> right, then the individual contributors *should* hold the database
> right.

I think that's the problem with understanding the database right. It 
just works for the database as a whole and doesn't care about the 
content (and it doesn't matter if the content (the single elements) is 
protected or not). If there are many contributors there is only one who 
can claim the right for it (the person who invest the most / builds the 
framework of the database / the owner of the server - that's the 
interpretation I found in the german literature).

Bye, Andreas