"Peter Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The Brief - Does anyone strongly disagree with any aspects of the brief?
I feel that the above question should never appear in a call for comments: no one person can speak for everyone else. It's very much an "anyone feel like being shouted at?" question. However, I'll stick my neck out: I don't agree with the list in point 1)2. which seems to permit non-machine-readable changesets, while not permitting a CD in the box with a hardware device containing the derived dataset. Those two cases should be the other way around: allow accompanying datasets outside the end-user experience; and forbid non-machine-readable changesets if the original dataset is machine-readable. > Are there any ways we could make it stronger and better? 1) "should be also made available" is unclear and clunky - perhaps "should be available" is sufficient? Similarly all other "made available"s. 2) What is "similar"? Is this a backdoor? 3)b) "licence" should be "license" - even in English English, the verb has a s. Use of "protects" is ambiguous and inappropriate - "covers"? 5) Whose "fair-use" rules? The USA's? The pretty-minor UK ones? > If so can we hear about > the issues in the next few days so we can try to accommodate them? See above. I have not time to review the use cases at this point. Sorry. -- MJ Ray (slef) Webmaster for hire, statistician and online shop builder for a small worker cooperative http://www.ttllp.co.uk/ http://mjr.towers.org.uk/ (Notice http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html) tel:+44-844-4437-237 _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
