Actually I think the duck test http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test is the simplest way of approaching this problem. If someone treats something as a database then its a database. Otherwise its a produced work.
They can call it whatever they like when the publish it. The duck test kicks in when someone uses it. 80n On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote: > Hi, > > Mike Collinson wrote: > > "If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it > > is a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced > > Work. > > > > We can clearly define things that are USUALLY Produced Works: .PNG, > > JPG, .PDF, SVG images and any raster image; a map in a physically > > printed work. > > > > Database dumps are usually not Produced Works, e.g a Planet dump." > > I think it was 80n who, in an older discussion about this, pointed out > that it may not be helpful to focus on the *intent* of someone doing > something. Someone might make an SVG file that contains the full > original OSM data, but without the intent of extracting data, and > someone else then uses that as a database. But I guess we don't need to > get all upset about this because if a database is made from the Produced > Work then ODbL again applies through the reverse engineering clause... > > Bye > Frederik > > -- > Frederik Ramm ## eMail frede...@remote.org ## N49°00'09" E008°23'33" > > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > legal-talk@openstreetmap.org > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk >
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
