David Groom wrote: > However your argument above completely fails to refer to Clause 2 > of the CT's (and Robert Whittaker wrote similarly)
Yes. It's my belief that 2 onwards have to be read in the context of 1a/1b. There would be no point having 1a/1b if that were not the case; and my reading of the LWG minutes is that this was the intention. As I said in the original message, though, "it is perhaps not as clearly worded as it could be". cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Statement-from-nearmap-com-regarding-submission-of-derived-works-from-PhotoMaps-to-Opp-tp6477002p6483004.html Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
