[OSM-talk] remove the suggestion to credit "contributors"

[Mario Frasca]

Hi,

maybe I'm not reading too attentively, but what I understand is that the 
contract is about licensing, while the copyright on what the contract 
calls 'Your Contents' stays mine.

that is what I thought when I wrote:

> if you say that "© OpenStreetMap" is the same as "© OpenStreetMap 
> contributors", I'm fine. 
I have the impression you are confusing copyright ownership with 
licensing and authorization to sub-licensing.

> Legally, the copyright actually belongs to the Foundation (and 
> individual contributors retain their copyright, but grant usage and 
> distribution rights to the OSMF).
somehow I keep finding your parenthesized explanations confusing. if 
you're right in your out-of-parentheses statement, I would probably 
reconsider my position as contributor.

MF

On 17/04/2020 09:36, Martin Koppenhoefer wrote:
> Am Fr., 17. Apr. 2020 um 15:37 Uhr schrieb Mario Frasca 
> <mario at anche.no <mailto:mario at anche.no>>:
>
>     but if you argue that OpenStreetMap is owned by
>     OpenStreetMapFoundation
>     and that "© OpenStreetMap" means "© OpenStreetMapFoundation", then
>     I'd
>     rather stick to the current situation, where it's very clear that the
>     copyright belongs to contributors, be it as individuals or as a
>     community.
>
>
>
> I tried to look at the legal situation (morally, I agree that 
> OpenStreetMap is more about the community than 
> OpenStreetMapFoundation, indeed that's an unmentioned reason why I 
> suggested OpenStreetMap and not the foundation to be credited also in 
> an updated version.
>
> Legally, the copyright actually belongs to the Foundation (and 
> individual contributors retain their copyright, but grant usage and 
> distribution rights to the OSMF). It is written in the contract you 
> have signed with the OSMF (contributor terms). If you download data 
> from OpenStreetMap, your licensor is the OSMF. You have authorized the 
> OSMF to distribute the content on their behalf, and to pursue 
> copyright infringements.
>
> "You hereby grant to OSMF a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, 
> perpetual, irrevocable licence to do any act that is restricted by 
> copyright, database right or any related right over anything within 
> the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other. These 
> rights explicitly include commercial use, and do not exclude any field 
> of endeavour. These rights include, without limitation, the right to 
> sub-license the work through multiple tiers of sub-licensees and to 
> sue for any copyright violation directly connected with OSMF's rights 
> under these terms. To the extent allowable under applicable local laws 
> and copyright conventions, You also waive and/or agree not to assert 
> against OSMF or its licensees any moral rights that You may have in 
> the Contents."
>
> There are also some conditions of course, "OSMF agrees that it may 
> only use or sub-license Your Contents as part of a database and only 
> under the terms of one or more of the following licences: ODbL 1.0 for 
> the database and DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database; 
> CC-BY-SA 2.0; or such other free and open licence as may from time to 
> time be chosen by a vote of the OSMF membership and approved by at 
> least a 2/3 majority vote of active contributors."
>
> And of course in 5 you have mutually agreed, that "except as set forth 
> herein, You reserve all right, title, and interest in and to Your 
> Contents."
>
> https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Licence/Contributor_Terms
>
> The excerpts are copied from the current version 1.2.4.
> There isn't much information (or I didn't find it) to which specific 
> version one has agreed, nor is the text of former versions publicly 
> visible, but AFAIK OSMF has internally a trace of who has agreed to 
> which version, and of course people will have their own copies on 
> their pc.
> I don't recall agreeing to any updated versions of the Contributor 
> Terms after 2012, and I guess nobody has, you always agreed to the 
> current version when you signed up (or at the license change in 2012), 
> so your contract with the OSMF may be slightly different.
>
> Cheers
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/talk/attachments/20200417/eb28b49a/attachment.htm>