On 13/08/2010, at 8:17, "David Groom" <revi...@pacific-rim.net> wrote: > >> > Firstly, as you say "sometime in the past". So Yahoo gave permission when > the project has a CC-BY-SA licence. The contributor terms allow the > switching of the licence to a non-CC-BY-SA licence. So how can I possibly > say that on the basis of an agreement made some time ago Yahoo now agree to > contributors agreeing to the CT terms.
Yahoo disclaimed copyright in information that is derived from their aerial photography. So, this "permission" is not limited to any particular license. > Secondly, the real point I was making was that the CT terms state "... You > represent and warrant that You have explicit permission from the rights > holder to submit the Contents and grant the license below ...". And I simply > do not have explicit permission. I don't have explicit permission because: > > a) The permission was not made to me, but to a more general body of people; > so the permission I have is IMPLICIT. That is not the correct meaning of "explicit". Explicit means "expressed", by means of a statement, whether verbally or in writing. As opposed to implicit, which means assumed in the absence of a statement. If the rights holder makes a statement that permission is granted to "any person", then it _is_ explicit permission for you, since you are a member of the set "any person". Explicit does not mean specific. _______________________________________________ talk mailing list talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
