----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Fairhurst" <rich...@systemed.net>
To: <talk-au@openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 5:19 PM
Subject: Re: [talk-au] Going separate ways
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.
I don't think we need to concern ourselves too much with "general
principles", lets stick with the actual ODbL. Although I suppose if you
start from the position of what the general principles are it might be
easier to read into the ODbL things which are not there.
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.
Well for a start 4.8 only comes into play when you communicate a derivative
database, whereas the definitions are always in force. So assuming I did
not communicate the derivative database then surely I would have to look at
what the definitions say rather than clause 4.8 which is not relevant?
Irrespective of the point above, my reading of the terms would not break
clause 4.8. The derivative database would be offered under ODbL, and you
would still have to comply with all the requirements of the ODbL which
relate to derivative databases. What is broken?
Rather, "in unmodified form" in this instance is clarifying "independent".
Exactly how to you come to the conclusion that "unmodified" does not mean
"unmodified" , but means "independent"?
Regards
David
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
_______________________________________________
Talk-au mailing list
Talk-au@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk-au
