On 20 December 2010 10:25, Simone Cortesi <sim...@cortesi.com> wrote: > On Mon, Dec 20, 2010 at 10:00, Stephen Hope <slh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I must admit, however, that basically handing the keys to the OSMF, >> which is what the new CT's amount to, is not filling me with joy >> considering their track record to date. I'm willing to do a certain >> amount of work to make sure the data I've provided over the years >> isn't lost, but if they jerk me around too much or make it too hard >> I'll just write it off as a loss and spend my free time somewhere it's >> appreciated. > > this is no way different from GPL released software: > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html
Reading the link it looks like a very different situation. The FSF want copyright assignment because it makes the legal process of copyright enforcement more effective and efficient. The CT don't even result in copyright assignment to the OSMF do they? So how is this in no way different? The OSMF clearly are not using the CT for the same reasons the FSF require copyright assignment. It's probably also worth noting that the majority of GPL projects do not assign copyright to the FSF or require copyright assignment at all. It makes contributors uncomfortable and makes it much more difficult to share code between different projects. -- DavidD _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
