On Fri, Sep 3, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Rob Myers <r...@robmyers.org> wrote: > AFAICT the DbCL reduces the effective copyright level of the contents of the > database to that of facts. > >> It's a great answer by Jordan Hatcher. It rests on the assumption >> that OSM consists solely of factual data (or, at least, that any >> extract from a Produced Work would consist solely of factual data). >> But that's probably a good assumption in many cases (e.g. tracing >> roads without copying the categorization of those roads). > > Given the DbCL I'm not sure that the contents being non-factual would change > things. But if you are concerned about this you should ask on odc-discuss.
I guess. Although it's not really the ODbL that gets me confused but the CT, where it says "DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database". Even more specifically, "the individual contents". What constitutes "individual"? A row in the database? Is a way an individual piece, and if so, what does that mean (does an individual piece which is a way mean just the ordered node references, or does it include the lat/lons of the nodes which are referenced). Etc. Clearly an individual way could, in theory (not in OSM practice), be copyrightable (http://thisworldisnotforsale.com/cgi-bin/james/040821_taking_Line_For_Walk/singleLineFaces400x331.jpg). If such a database were released with "DbCL 1.0 for the individual contents of the database", would the way be DbCL, or would it be ODbL? Would it make a difference if the way were split into 1,000 different connected ways? _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
