[OSM-legal-talk] New phrase in section 2

[Anthony]

On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 12:10 PM, Grant Slater
<openstreetmap at firefishy.com> wrote:
> On 3 December 2010 16:21, Anthony <osm at inbox.org> wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 3, 2010 at 10:39 AM, Richard Fairhurst <richard at 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.

Just to clarify, I don't claim or even believe there was any
maliciousness involved in adding that phrase into the CT.

However, I don't know of any jurisdiction where clear, plain language,
unintended consequences are unenforcible.