On 3 December 2010 16:21, Anthony <o...@inbox.org> wrote: > On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst <rich...@systemed.net> > 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 can be >> adequately explained by cock-up. > > The whole thing is a mistake, but I find it hard to believe that the > wording of the license was an accident. The fact that it got re-added > in 1.2 was probably an accident, but the appearance of it in 0.9? How > could it be an accident? >
I'm a member of Licensing Working Group... I haven't followed this whole thread yet, but if there is a mistake it is a cocked up, not malicious. We only recently sent CT 1.2 to legal for their review, nothing back yet AFAIK... We're only human, but legal has lawyers! ;-) I'll raise this thread at our next meeting on Tuesday. Regards Grant LWG member. _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-t...@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
