[OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment

[Matt Amos]

On Tue, Jun 7, 2011 at 10:44 AM, Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com> wrote:
> Grant Slater <openstreetmap at ...> writes:
>
>>>- block anyone who says no from contributing
>>>and presto! you have your 2/3 majority of active contributors.
>
>>Reality check... So to "steal" all our precious data and kick the
>>majority of the contributors the "stupid evil OSMF" you propose would
>>have to shut down people contributing and joining OSM for 9 MONTHS
>>before they could run such a rigged system.
>
> You're right, it is a fanciful and unrealistic example, at least from the point
> of view of keeping a running OSM project with contributors.  It would be a way
> to get a static copy of the map under any terms wanted.
>
> However, what I hope people realize is that these 'evil conspiracy theory'
> arguments are the same ones used to assert that CC-BY-SA doesn't protect the
> data, any company could just copy it, and so on, despite not a shred of evidence
> that this has happened.

funny thing is, i don't see these 'evil conspiracy theory' arguments
coming from lawyers, whereas i've heard the 'CC-BY-SA doesn't protect
the data' argument coming not only from lawyers, but also from
Creative Commons itself!

> I wish people would apply a more realistic perspective
> and 'assume good faith' a little bit more in these matters too.

as do i. everyone serving on OSMF working groups, including LWG, cares
deeply about the state and future of OSM, and they spend a great deal
of their time trying to ensure that future. (small plug for the OSMF
workshop, Sunday 12th - come along and chat with the board members and
other interested OSMF members [1])

> All I intended
> to demonstrate is that no amount of legalese and boilerplate in the licence or
> contributor terms will block out all possible abuses, so we should lighten up
> a bit.

you're absolutely right. no matter what the license we have, or the
terms that are offered to contributors, there will always be people
and companies using the data without complying with the license, or
contributors (possibly companies) uploading data which can't be safely
used as part of OSM. i do believe that the new license and contributor
terms better define what is acceptable, and that if/when it becomes
necessary to take action in the future, we'll be in a better place.

cheers,

matt

[1] http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Foundation/Board_Meeting_June_2011