[OSM-legal-talk] How Can OSMF convince me to accept the New CT and ODBL

Ed Avis eda at waniasset.com
Thu Dec 9 13:27:35 GMT 2010


>
I believe the question is whether the OSMF should have special rights which
are not available to others.

If you look again at the explanation of the OSMF's role:

>>It is important to understand that the OpenStreetMap Foundation is not the
>>same thing as the OpenStreetMap project. The Foundation does not own the
>>OpenStreetMap data, is not the copyright holder and has no desire to own the
>>data. Anyone can set up a few servers and host the OSM data using the same
>>or different software. In this respect the Foundation is an organisation
>>that performs fundraising in order to provides servers to host the project.
>>Its role is to support the project, not to control it.

A key point is that 'anyone can set up a few servers and host the OSM data'.
If that is so, then the contributor terms should not need to mention OSMF
specifically - not unless the OSMF is trying to gain rights which others lack.

If a particular licence, be it CC-BY-SA, ODbL or whatever, is considered
suitable for the project then it must grant enough permissions to host a
website with the map, make changes, distribute them further and so on.  That
being so, it is not necessary to have additional rights assignment to OSMF or
anyone else.

Some may consider this viewpoint to be quite impractical.  However, it is how
the project is working now, and seems to be successful.

>I've seen this point discussed many times before. The CT's do not
>transfer ownership.

Technically this is true, but the grant of rights is so broad ('any action
restricted by copyright') and the limitations of 'any free and open licence'
and a vote of 'active contributors' are so loosely specified, that it amounts
to almost the same thing in practice.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>




More information about the legal-talk mailing list