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

Eugene Alvin Villar seav80 at gmail.com
Sun Apr 17 10:00:34 BST 2011


On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 4:51 PM, Florian Lohoff <f at zz.de> wrote:
> 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.

FSF, owner of GCC, has copyright assignment. On the other hand, OSMF's
CT only has a rights grant (contributor still retains copyright on his
own data), which is the same thing as what ASF's agreement asks. So
this should be less problematic than the FSF situation.



More information about the legal-talk mailing list