On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Grant Slater <openstreet...@firefishy.com> wrote: > On 3 December 2010 16:21, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: >> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> >> wrote: >>> Rather, as Francis pointed out: "A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting >>> the licence? It does happen you know :-)." >>> >>> Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which can be >>> adequately explained by cock-up. >> >> The whole thing is a mistake, but I find it hard to believe that the >> wording of the license was an accident. The fact that it got re-added >> in 1.2 was probably an accident, but the appearance of it in 0.9? How >> could it be an accident? >> > > I'm a member of Licensing Working Group... I haven't followed this > whole thread yet, but if there is a mistake it is a cocked up, not > malicious.
Just to clarify, I don't claim or even believe there was any maliciousness involved in adding that phrase into the CT. However, I don't know of any jurisdiction where clear, plain language, unintended consequences are unenforcible. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
