[OSM-legal-talk] Compliance timeline

Eugene Alvin Villar seav80 at gmail.com
Sun Apr 10 04:45:06 BST 2011


On Fri, Apr 8, 2011 at 6:52 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8 April 2011 20:38, Nick Hocking <nick.hocking at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I believe that this is the (only) critical issue. To be open contributions
>> need to be given freely and without restriction, so as to avoid the current
>> situation where some contributors (with varying agendas) seem to be holding
>> OSM to ransom by threatening not to relicence their contributions.
>
> Which is something only done by commercial companies, most community
> based projects have a fixed license, I'd love for someone to try and
> push something like the CTs on kernel contributors and see how far
> they got considering how strongly people are in favour of share a
> like.

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Free Software Foundation has
copyright assignment: you assign your code copyright to FSF. ANd if
you check the usual contract, there is no mention of any fixed GNU
license.

In addition, the Apache Software Foundation also has a software code
CT, with language quite similar to OSM's CT:

"You hereby grant to the [Apache Software] Foundation and to
recipients of software distributed by the Foundation a perpetual,
worldwide, non-exclusive, no-charge, royalty-free, irrevocable
copyright license to reproduce, prepare derivative works of, publicly
display, publicly perform, sublicense, and distribute Your
Contributions and such derivative works."

Interestingly, the ASF does not even specify any fixed open-source or
free license (and it could even be effectively public domain basing on
the ASF CT's language).



More information about the legal-talk mailing list