I have no intention of getting into a debate about whether ODBL is the best licence for OSM data here. However, I do feel the need to correct one very important factual point regarding the Contributor Terms.
On Mon, 06 Jun 2011 06:20 +0200, "Mike Dupont" <jamesmikedup...@googlemail.com> wrote: > This process is about you giving up all your rights, not them doing anything > for > it in return. No, you are granting rights to OSMF, not giving up all your rights. There is nothing to stop you additionally licensing your contributions in any way you like. This is less onerous than the FSF terms (which seem to be fairly widely accepted in the open source software community). FSF requires full copyright assignment: you lose title to your own code. OSMF does not require that: you still have title and you still have rights, but OSMF gains rights (subject to conditions), too, and can thus include your data in the OSM database. FSF FAQ re copyright assignment: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AssignCopyright Text of FSF copyright assignment form: http://www.dreamsongs.com/IHE/IHE-110.html David PS I don’t personally think the FSF-style full copyright assignment is evil, but accept others may disagree. The point is that it is irrelevant here, because OSMF is not asking for it. PPS IANAL :) _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
