On 16 June 2011 07:48, Ben Last <ben.l...@nearmap.com> wrote: > On 15 June 2011 19:52, David Groom <revi...@pacific-rim.net> wrote: >> >> sorry to be pedantic, but when you say "the second paragraph allows edits >> submitted before the 17th of June 2011 under CC-BY-SA (i.e., by someone who >> hadn't accepted the new CTs >> at the time of submission) ..... to stay in the database", do you mean >> it is OK for someone who in the past has made edits based on Nearmap >> imagery, (and who has not yet agreed to the CT's because they had used >> Nearmap) , to now agree to the CT's without being in breach of Nearmaps T & >> C's? >> >> I know this may seem like splitting hairs, but there is a difference >> between "allowing edits to remain in the database" which is something OSM >> sysadmins have control over, and "allowing users to agree to the CT's" which >> is something individual OSM users have control over, and I'm just trying to >> understand , as someone who has used Nearmap, but not agreed to the CT's, >> where I stand. >> > Pedantic is ok, this was written by lawyers! > The second paragraph was drafted specifically to allow any NearMap-derived > edits made up to the 17th of June to stay in the OSM database. As I > understand it, this statement allows a user to sign up to the new CTs > without violating our licence in respect of those edits.
Sadly, that's not how I understand it - particularly the "terms in place between OSM and the individual ... at the relevant time." bit says to me that retrospective signing of the CTs to cover old contributions isn't allowed. James Andrewartha _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
