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

[Andreas Perstinger]

On 2011-06-08 03:25, David Groom wrote:
>> 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

So trusting someone is equal to being dumb?

> (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

These people had to resolve an inner conflict and decided this time to 
accept the CT. Does that mean that they'll come to the same conclusion 
the next time?

> (iii) I'm not interested in legalities I just want to get mapping, so I
> agreed to the CT's;

These people probably didn't care about cc-by-sa either and would 
perhaps sign everything. But are you sure?

> 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

What evidence do you have? Has Nearmap already complained about it? Do 
you speak on behalf of Nearmap?

> 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?

I've never stated such claims and thus need no evidence. But I think 
it's pretty arrogant to state that over 90.000 contributors (or rather 
over 120.000 for hypothetical new CT) don't know what they do.

Bye, Andreas