On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote:
> On 01/01/10 17:40, Anthony wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 1, 2010 at 11:53 AM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote: > > > > > >> But OSM does not require copyright assignment, so it is not *directly* > >> relevant. > >> > >> > > What OSMF requires in the current draft is for you to effectively give up > > your copyright altogether. > > That is simply untrue. OSMF requires a broad copyright licence but not > an exclusive one. > I didn't say it was exclusive. "You hereby grant to OSMF and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other." You grant everyone the right to do anything. You're effectively releasing your content into the public domain. And since OSMF are using a broad non-exclusive licence on the database, > and you are arguign that for an individual to do this "effectively" > gives up their rights altogether, surely OSMF are "effectively" giving > up *their* rights on the database altogether? > No, the ODbL is much more restrictive than "a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual, irrevocable license to do any act that is restricted by copyright over anything within the Contents, whether in the original medium or any other" > > If > > you agree to the contributor terms, you can't sue anyone for a license > > violation, but the OSMF can. > > > > Which licence, and what are the advantages to suing in a personal > capacity rather than having OSMF do so? > Any license. And the advantage is that who you want to sue might be different from who the OSMF wants to sue. For example, let's say you want to sue Cloudmade...
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
