> From: Tobias Knerr [mailto:o...@tobias-knerr.de]
> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2012 12:14 AM
> To: legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL
>
> On 30.10.2012 13:30, Michael Collinson wrote:
> > I propose that we base a re-write on: *OpenStreetMap considers **Open
> > Data to be a usefully collected set of intelligently or machine-made
> > physical observations only. Purely algorithmic augmentation of data
> > and re-casting of data to use, store or transmit it in different
> > manners is not part of the data IP. Share Alike may however apply to
> > physical observations inside the augmented or re-cast data; in this
> > case the physical observations must be provided to the public in a
> > commonly used or documented open format as per ODbL clause 4.6b*. The
> > wording might be improved, but that is the general idea.
>
> I just want to say that I like this suggestion. It is the first time
> I've seen a possible definition of what would be required to be
> published because of the Share Alike clause - and what wouldn't - that
> draws a clearly understandable line and where I could actually imagine
> that it would be reasonably applicable in practice.
I like that interpretation, the question is if it is supported by the text
of the ODbL. If it isn't then the statement is of no value.
Reading 4.6.b and the paragraph below it there might be some justification
for such an interpretation in the lower paragraph.
The lower paragraph talks about the "alteration file (under b.)" In my mind,
this is envisioning the file under 4.6.b being a diff of some kind adding
new data, not a file describing a purely algorithmic transformation of data
that includes no new data.
You would of course be required to state how to apply the diff (e.g. take
this .osc and use osmosis to apply it to planet.osm). It could also be
something more complicated (e.g. use this program that reads in the OSM
file, matches the objects against this shapefile and adds extra attributes
from the shapefile).
Additional support for this would be that the act of converting a
copyrighted work (e.g. a map, to the extent that it's protected by
copyright) from one format to another does not generally attract copyright
protection.
Weighing against this interpretation is the broad definition of derivative
database in the ODbL.
I like the proposed text, I just have an itching feeling it might require
ODbL 1.1 to implement.
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
