[OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the CT)

Florian Lohoff f at zz.de
Sun Apr 17 09:51:54 BST 2011


On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 01:17:46PM +0800, Eugene Alvin Villar wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot256 at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 17 April 2011 14:39, Eugene Alvin Villar <seav80 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why
> >> should it be a big problem for OSM contributors (setting aside the
> >> desire to import other data for which the contributor has no right to
> >> sublicense)?
> >
> > Apache has been a mature project for quite some time, what you should
> > be asking instead is why did others go for GPL for their httpd.
> >
> > In any case this sort of clause is most common with projects like
> > google map maker, In fact until recently this was a reason used to
> > promote OSM, the fact that it didn't use the same terms as google map
> > maker.
> 
> The point still stands. Granting rights to a central body (but not
> your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open
> communities.

But has been a major point of problems in the past. Have a look at
the GCC issues. Patches will not be submitted because a transfer of 
copyright is a no go for some.

Flo
-- 
Florian Lohoff                                                 f at zz.de
„Für eine ausgewogene Energiepolitik über das Jahr 2020 hinaus ist die
Nutzung von Atomenergie eine Brückentechnologie und unverzichtbar. Ein
Ausstieg in zehn Jahren, wie noch unter der rot-grünen Regierung
beschlossen, kommt für die nationale Energieversorgung zu abrupt.“
Angela Merkel CDU 30.8.2009
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 828 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20110417/4ca51e4c/attachment.pgp>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list