Simon Ward wrote: >Sent: 14 October 2008 12:32 AM >To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org >Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] License License License > >On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 02:44:07PM +0100, Richard Fairhurst wrote: >> Tim Waters (chippy) wrote: >> >>> Going back to the newly uploaded draft [1]. Maybe it's me, maybe it's >>> the legal speak, but where does it explicitly say that if someone >>> creates and releases to an unsuspecting public a derived work (paper >>> map piddled on by performance artist, say) then they have to also make >>> available any derived database that they used to make it with? >> >> /me starts to laugh hysterically. >> >> The version on the OSMF site is not the latest one (i.e. the one >> containing the work which OSMF paid Jordan for). > >I asked for the _current_ draft and got told it would be on the site >shortly. Mike responded saying he had put it on the site. I was >curious about the timestamp in the metadata, I got told this was the >draft sent for review. That all sounds true, but Im still miffed we >didnt just get to see the current draft in the first place (assuming >the one posted is current and doesnt contain random clauses about >Richard F owning all your first born, etc; I havent read it yet). >
Apologies to all, thats my mistake. I forwarded the wrong version to Mike for inclusion on the website. I'll have that sorted asap. The version Richard just posted is the correct one. Cheers Andy _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
