----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Fairhurst" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey
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".
All I can say is that with the endless discussion on the CT's, and the
numerous revisions it went through, it seems odd that if the intention was
that clause 2 had to be read in conjunction with Clause 1a/1b, then Clause 2
does not specifically say so. Especially since Clause 2 does say it is
subject to Clauses 3 & 4.
However, if as you say it is intention that clause 2 be read in conjunction
with Clause 1a/1b, then it presumably is a trivial matter for the CT's to be
reworded to make this clear.
Regards
David
cheers
Richard
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
