[OSM-legal-talk] Contradictory Contributor Terms?

[SomeoneElse]

  A few days ago a question was asked about the first and last sentences 
of the new CT (https://www.openstreetmap.org/user/terms) being 
contradictory 
(http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/2010-August/003969.html). 
I know that everyone's been busy, but was that question ever answered?

Taking OS OpenData as an example, their licence 
(http://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/oswebsite/opendata/licence/docs/licence.pdf) 
makes the statement "OS OpenData™ is covered by either Crown Copyright, 
Crown Database Right, or has been licensed to the Crown".

That implies to me that although the OS are happy for me to use it 
(subject to their terms) sentence 1 of the new CTs prevents the addition 
of it to OSM. However, this is contradicted by sentence 3 " If You are 
not the copyright holder of the Contents". Can anyone associated with 
the draughting of the new CTs explain why this isn't a contradiction?

Perhaps (as Bernard Ingham said) it's a cock-up rather than a conspiracy 
and there's just an "or" missing somewhere?

Cheers,
Andy