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

[David Groom]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Fairhurst" <richard at systemed.net>
To: <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 2:25 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] data derived from UK Ordnace Survey


>
> 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".

All I can say is that with the endless discussion on the CT's, and the 
numerous revisions it went through, it seems odd that if the intention was 
that clause 2 had to be read in conjunction with Clause 1a/1b, then Clause 2 
does not specifically say so.  Especially since Clause 2 does say it is 
subject to Clauses 3 & 4.

However, if as you say it is intention that clause 2 be read in conjunction 
with Clause 1a/1b, then it presumably is a trivial matter for the CT's to be 
reworded to make this clear.

Regards

David

>
> cheers
> Richard
>