[OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey

[Richard Fairhurst]

David Groom wrote:
> However your argument above completely fails to refer to Clause 2 
> of the CT's
(and Robert Whittaker wrote similarly)

Yes. It's my belief that 2 onwards have to be read in the context of 1a/1b.
There would be no point having 1a/1b if that were not the case; and my
reading of the LWG minutes is that this was the intention. As I said in the
original message, though, "it is perhaps not as clearly worded as it could
be". 

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-Statement-from-nearmap-com-regarding-submission-of-derived-works-from-PhotoMaps-to-Opp-tp6477002p6483004.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.