On 09/03/2010 05:50 PM, Anthony wrote:
On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:45 PM, Rob Myers<r...@robmyers.org> wrote:
On 09/03/2010 05:27 PM, Anthony wrote:
But the extract is not the database. It may be *a* database, but it's
not *the* database that's protected by ODbL.
Then if it contains a Substantial portion of the Database its *a* Derivative
Database. (Capitalised words refer to ODbL term definitions.)
ODbL term definitions only matter if the extract is protected by law.
Well yes but then that's true of BY-SA as well, and BY-SA avails itself
of less of the law.
I can't write a license which says "you can't copy a substantial
portion of my phone book white pages" and then expect to enforce it on
people who haven't agreed to those terms. Not in a
non-database-rights and non-sweat-of-the-brow jurisdiction, anyway.
In those jurisdictions BY-SA will not cover extracted facts either.
Whether or not the database is a Derivative Database only matters if
the database is a derivative database. And if you haven't copied any
of the copyrightable portions of the original database, it isn't.
A Derivative Database will be covered by copyright/database
right/contract law to the extent possible. BY-SA has 33% of that
coverage at most.
So I'm not really clear about what the problem is meant to be.
- Rob.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
