On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Frederik Ramm <frede...@remote.org> wrote:
> Hi, > > > On 11/28/11 10:43, 80n wrote: > >> If you cannot reproduce the Produced Work 100% faithfully from the >> Derived Database in what sense does the Derived Database contain all of >> the information required to create the Produced Work? >> > > It doesn't, and it doesn't have to. Only in so far as the *database* has > been augmented to make the produced work does such information have to be > released. Any other, non-database input (what you seem to call "worthless > prettyfing" - I guess that members of the trade might disagree!) that > becomes part of the Produced Work is not affected by the ODbL. > > If new information is added at the non-database stage - let's say someone > prints out a map, paints something over it making the whole thing a work of > art, then notices a missing road and pencils it in - then that is not the > making of a derived database and does not have to be shared. If the same > guy, however, goes back the the data, adds the road, and makes a new > rendering from it, then it is. > > That's a very fine line you are trying to draw. What you are saying is that I can create a map, publish it as a produced work and then update that map as much as I like with impunity. Technically I can do that using a pencil as you suggest, or I can do the same thing by processing the produced work into a digital form and applying "pencil marks" using an automated process. But if you allow the latter then you effectively allow reverse engineering of the produced work. Why should a lead pencil be considered ok, but an electronic pencil not be permitted? 80n
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk