David Groom wrote: > But as I said earlier, the ODbL seems quite clear that you cant make > a "Collective Database" from anything other than the original > database in unmodified form. Since neither of the two individual > items are the original database in unmodified form
Yes, they are. This is a general principle of any open content licence: a Derivative always enjoys the same freedoms as the works from which it was made. ODbL makes this absolute in 4.8: "Each time You communicate [a] Derivative Database, [...] the Licensor offers to the recipient a license to the Database on the same terms and conditions as this License." Your reading would break this. Rather, "in unmodified form" in this instance is clarifying "independent". That is, you cannot make non-ODbL-licensable changes in order to mix the ODbL- and non-ODbL-licensed parts of the collective. This is why you cannot take ODbL-France and CC-Germany and link them. This would require modifying the ODbL data _outwith_ what ODbL permits you to do. "In unmodified form" is making it clear that you can't do that: you have no additional permissions to modify the ODbL-licensed part of the database (which is, after all, all ODbL is concerned about) for the purpose of forming a Collective Database. But in the Australia case, you are not modifying the ODbL-licensed part of the database. Every item in the database remains 100% ODbL-licensed. cheers Richard -- View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Going-separate-ways-tp6567842p6571535.html Sent from the Australia mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ Talk-au mailing list Talk-au@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
