[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: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] CTs are not full copyright assignment


>
> 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?

I had assumed that when you used the phrase "dumb sheeps" it was not meant 
to be taken too literally, since surely you are not suggesting that any OSM 
contributors are actual sheep? I had assumed you were using the phrase "are 
dumb sheeps who will sign everything" as a shorthand for saying something 
along the lines of "have not given due thought to the exact meaning of the 
CT's and whether or not they are in a position to agree to the CT's having 
had due regard to all the facts"

So no, I'm not suggesting they are "dumb", nor am I suggesting they are 
actually "sheep".  I am suggesting that many people may have agreed to the 
CT's without being fully aware of whether or not they could legally do so.

>
>> (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?

As for evidence

a)  Nearmap have stated on the OSM Australian talk list that past use of 
their imagery as a source for OSM is not compatible with agreement to the 
CT's. 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-April/007841.html

b) For evidence that users have agreed to the CT's who have dervied OSM data 
from Nearmap, see 
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk-au/2011-April/007946.html

>Has Nearmap already complained about it? Do you speak on behalf of Nearmap?

No I dont speak for NeapMap.

>
>> 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.

In which case I apologise, I obviuosly misunderstood what you meant when you 
wrote "Why do you and some others think that the majority of the 
contributors are dumb sheeps who will sign everything? " Could you perhaps 
clarify what you did mean?

>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.

Actually I did not state that.

What I did state is

That there is plenty of evidence from the sort of postings I outlined (i) - 
(iii)  to the various mailing lists, that some people have signed up to the 
CT's who either have not given due thought to the meaning of the CT's, or 
who have decided to ignore the meaning, and agree to the CT's anyway.

I could also have added (iv) - people who have agreed to the CT's and then 
asked how they can un-agree because they realise they should not have agreed 
in the first place.

I did not state, but it seems reasonable to assume, that since not everyone 
posts to the email lists, then the number of people who have not given full 
consideration to the meaning of the CT's is considerably higher than would 
be indicated by the postings to the mailing lists.

David

>
> Bye, Andreas
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
>