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

[David Groom]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Andreas Perstinger" <andreas.perstinger at gmx.net>
To: <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 10:33 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment


>
> On 2011-06-07 10:35, Ed Avis wrote:
>> Frederik Ramm<frederik at ...>  writes:
>>> 3. OSMF to choose a new license that is "free and open", present it to
>>> OSM community for vote, and get 2/3 of active mappers to agree with the
>>> new license. This is the only bit that is new, and the "2/3 of mappers"
>>> hurdle can hardly be called "allow the board to tweak the license".
>>
>> The process is pretty simple really:
>>
>> - decide what licence you want without bothering to hold a vote
>>
>> - get everyone to sign up to new contributor terms allowing that licence
>
> Why do you and some others think that the majority of the contributors are 
> dumb sheeps who will sign everything?

1)  Because I've seen postings to various OSM emailing lists along the lines 
of:

(i) I trust OSM to get it right and so I just agreed to the CT;s
(ii) I don't like the CT's but I want my data preserved in OSM so I felt I 
had to agree to the CT;s
(iii) I'm not interested in legalities I just want to get mapping, so I 
agreed to the CT's;

2) Because there is very definite evidence that even though Nearmap derived 
data is not compatible with the CT's, many mappers who have used Neapmap in 
the past have agreed to the CT's

So, Andreas what evidence do you have, that the majority of those who have 
agreed to the CT's, have given along a thoughtful consideration of all the 
issues involved, and having done so have come to a reasoned decision on 
whether or not they can agree to the CT's?

Regards

David

>
> OTOH if everyone agrees to a new CT it can't be that bad, can it?
>
> Bye, Andreas
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>