Simon Poole wrote:
> That however does require the importer/mapper to raise the
> issue to a level where that support exists. As the LWG has
> pointed out, that hasn't worked in the past, and there is IMHO
> no reason to believe that it will magically start working in the
> future.
Oh, sure,
Hi Mike,
On 7 December 2010 21:44, Mike Collinson wrote:
> And to confirm ... the new phrase was introduced by mistake when initially
> setting up the 1.1 draft document and carried over into 1.2. I have removed
> it and checked all the other wording, though I'd certainly appreciate
> another che
On 3 December 2010 16:21, Anthony wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst
> wrote:
>> Rather, as Francis pointed out: "A mistake? Someone infelicitously drafting
>> the licence? It does happen you know :-)."
>>
>> Or, as ever with OSM, never attribute to conspiracy that which
On 12/01/2010 11:40 PM, Frederik Ramm wrote:
Hi,
fx99 wrote:
2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant
to OSMF
and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, .
can somebody explain to me, who is meant by "any party that receives Your
Contents" ?
Would t
Hi,
fx99 wrote:
2 Rights granted. Subject to Section 3 and 4 below, You hereby grant to OSMF
and any party that receives Your Contents a worldwide, .
can somebody explain to me, who is meant by "any party that receives Your
Contents" ?
Would that not simply be anyone who e.g. downloads "
5 matches
Mail list logo
