----- Original Message -----
From: "SomeoneElse" <li...@mail.atownsend.org.uk>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
<legal-talk@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:25 PM
Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Contradictory Contributor Terms?
A few days ago a question was asked about the first and last sentences
of the new CT (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms) being
contradictory
(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/003969.html).
I know that everyone's been busy, but was that question ever answered?
Taking OS OpenData as an example, their licence
(http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf)
makes the statement "OS OpenData™ is covered by either Crown Copyright,
Crown Database Right, or has been licensed to the Crown".
That implies to me that although the OS are happy for me to use it
(subject to their terms) sentence 1 of the new CTs prevents the addition
of it to OSM. However, this is contradicted by sentence 3 " If You are
not the copyright holder of the Contents". Can anyone associated with
the draughting of the new CTs explain why this isn't a contradiction?
Perhaps (as Bernard Ingham said) it's a cock-up rather than a conspiracy
and there's just an "or" missing somewhere?
Andy
there has been some discussion here
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/Open_Issues#Contradiction_within_the_paragraph_no_.281.29
David
Cheers,
Andy
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
