[OSM-legal-talk] Contradictory Contributor Terms?

[David Groom]

>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "SomeoneElse" <lists at mail.atownsend.org.uk>
> To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." 
> <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 18, 2010 1:25 PM
> Subject: [OSM-legal-talk] Contradictory Contributor Terms?
>
>
>
>  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?
>
Andy

there has been some discussion here 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Talk:Open_Database_License/Contributor_Terms/Open_Issues#Contradiction_within_the_paragraph_no_.281.29

David

> Cheers,
> Andy
>