On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 1:00 PM, John Smith <deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 17 April 2011 14:39, Eugene Alvin Villar <sea...@gmail.com> wrote: >> Clearly this is not that big a problem for Apache contributors, why >> should it be a big problem for OSM contributors (setting aside the >> desire to import other data for which the contributor has no right to >> sublicense)? > > Apache has been a mature project for quite some time, what you should > be asking instead is why did others go for GPL for their httpd. > > In any case this sort of clause is most common with projects like > google map maker, In fact until recently this was a reason used to > promote OSM, the fact that it didn't use the same terms as google map > maker.
The point still stands. Granting rights to a central body (but not your copyright--you still retain that) is not unheard of in open communities. I personally have not used the reason you state to promote OSM over GMM. I have always emphasized in my outreach that you can use OSM data in more ways than GMM's data (such as using OSM data to create Garmin maps--Garmin is the most popular PND brand in my country). I understand though that some may have used the "no central body" as a promotional banner, but that is a really poor method since the FSF and ASF has had copyright assignment and rights grants respectively for a long time now. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
