On 2 December 2010 15:43, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > > I have no idea why it was actually put there, but one positive thing > it does (besides nullifying the ODbL) is that it puts us all on an > equal footing with OSMF. >
Pedantically: OSMF has obligations under the CT so there's no interpretation where the footing is equal or identical, but I see what you mean. My understanding was that this was not the intended outcome - that is that OSM data should not be freely usable by everybody who receives it. As I have already said, I'm not sure that your interpretation is 100% certain. The CT's at the moment place an obligation on OSMF to licence under one of a series of licences, which would be an odd requirement if such a licence were superfluous. -- Francis Davey _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk