On Wed, Dec 9, 2009 at 12:14 AM, Matt Amos <zerebub...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 11:14 PM, andrzej zaborowski <balr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > 2009/12/8 Matt Amos <zerebub...@gmail.com>: > >> On Tuesday, December 8, 2009, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > >>> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:40 AM, <mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk > >>> <javascript:_e({}, > 'cvml', 'mapp...@sheerman-chase.org.uk');>> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> A quick question for the legal people: does ODbL allow the project to > >>> be forked? > >>> > >>> Technically, it does. But remember that the OSMF is granted a special > license in addition to the ODbL. Any fork would be at a major disadvantage > as it wouldn't have that special license. > >> > >> Yes, because the osmf has a direct relationship with the contributors, > >> and any fork wouldn't. This is similar to the fsf, which asks its > >> contributors to assign copyright, giving it rights that any fork > >> purely under the GPL doesn't have. > > > > Right, so this is one thing that isn't being made so clear. It's been > > said multiple times that the ODbL transition in summary is the spirit > > of CC-By-SA taken and made into a proper license for a database. But > > actually it's the spirit of CC-By-SA + copyright assignment, like that > > of Mozilla and others, which makes a difference. > > it's in that spirit, but it's also worth pointing out that we aren't > asking for copyright assignment or any other rights assignment. that's > a subtle, but often important difference. > > Matt, could you explain why it's an important difference please?
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk