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

ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen g.gremmen at cetest.nl
Sun Apr 17 13:00:22 BST 2011


Thank you for your polite qualification.
Among a thousand words you point out the only "opposite".
If I grant,  I decide how and when, not OSM(F).
The whole process of ODBL and CT
is all about data-protection and not about free data.
 


-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: Simon Poole [mailto:simon at poole.ch] 
Verzonden: zondag 17 april 2011 12:14
Aan: legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Rights granted to OSMF (Section 2 of the
CT)

Bullshit, in the music industry you grant -exclusive- rights, the CTs 
stipulate the opposite.

Simon

Am 17.04.2011 12:06, schrieb ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert
Gremmen:
>
>
>> 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.
>
> That is like writing a song, and grant the rights to do with it what
> he wants to the publisher. You seen where that leads to in the music
> business.
> Same for OSM. The CT-phrase in particular must be copied from them.
>
>
>
> Gert
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk


_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk



More information about the legal-talk mailing list