Anthony <o...@...> writes: [CTs]
>>On the other hand >>if the intention is 'you grant a perpetual licence do do anything at all, so >>we can therefore redistribute under practically any free licence including PD, >>and you have made sure that your contributions are compatible with that' then >>this must be made doubly clear, with an extra redundant paragraph if needed. > >I don't see any reason to believe that's the case. The stated >intention is "you grant a perpetual licence do do anything at all", >nothing about "we can therefore redistribute under practically any >free licence including PD", and nothing about "you have made sure that >your contributions are compatible with that". Why are you adding >things that aren't there? I believe those are logical consequences of granting the perpetual licence to do any act etc. However, even if they are logical consequences and don't strictly need to be stated, it would be good to add some redundant language just so that things are totally clear. However, note that I said 'if' - *if* that is the intention, then the CTs should say so. If the intention is something else, they should say that. At the moment the intention is not entirely clear, if the confusion on this list is anything to go by. -- Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
