Before this thread goes any further,Yes, a cock-up I believe, possibly mine. The un-highlighted text should be the same as CT 1.0. Thank you fx99 for pointing it out. Will investigate.
Mike At 03:39 PM 3/12/2010, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >David Groom wrote: >> If the OSMF board wish to move OSM to PD > >They don't, rendering the rest of your e-mail moot. I mean, personally I >think it'd be lovely if they did, but they don't. I'm slightly amazed that >anyone can consider this who has ever read any licence-related postings by >the chairman of the OSMF board, who has, let's say, a slight preference for >share-alike and is, shall we also say, not too shy to come forward with his >views. > >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. > >Richard > > >-- >View this message in context: >http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/New-phrase-in-section-2-tp5793972p5800255.html >Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > >_______________________________________________ >legal-talk mailing list >legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
