On 17 November 2010 11:00, Emilie Laffray <emilie.laff...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On 17 November 2010 10:46, Ed Avis <e...@waniasset.com> wrote: > >> >> 'other such free and open licence' should change to 'licence(s)'. >> > > I think we should keep the free and open as it clears any ambiguities about > OSMF potentially going rogue and imposing a proprietary licence (not that I > see that happening at all). That means that by mandate, we will always make > sure that the data is always available in a true open source fashion. > I think it is clearly important as a sign that we have no desire to move > from the initial statement to provide free data. > Sorry misread your comment. (Didn't realize you were just adding a plural). Please discard my previous comment. Emily Laffray
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
