To answer all your questions in one go: there has been a lot of discussion (especially on this mailing list) about the problems/issues you raised. And there have been some efforts to better clarify these things. I suggest reading the mailing list archive.
My own opinion is that the legal issues here are murky and I agree they could be interpreted differently by different lawyers/people. And I guess it is very difficult to write a good license text for such type of license, since there are a lot of different ways the data could be used, lot of corner cases and a lot of ways the licence could be circumvented by interested parties if written too specifically. I guess the protecting power of ODbL is in its murkiness :) I would not give myself too much hope with interpretations of "trivial" and "substantial", in my opinion your use case falls well outside of a trivial and unsubstantial use. On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Peter K <peat...@yahoo.de> wrote: > Thanks Igor! > > I still have a problem when the "substantial" part of the license apply. > Also in the wiki there is an explanation about "trivial transformation". > Are there some examples when both of them applies? > > The wiki raises more questions then it solves as it e.g. does not say if > the example is a trivial transformation or not: > > http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline > > > > Both, I think - this means you publicly distribute the Derivative > Database, which has its implications. It also means > > that CGIAR-based data is then available to public through a license > different (and more permissive) than the original > > CGIAR license, which the owner is probably not going to be happy about - > since he then cannot enforce the > > "*If interested in using this data for commercial purposes please email*" > rule. > > Ok, makes sense! BTW: why is such a modification not allowed for > OpenStreetMap? IMO this limits the applications a lot as also enterprise > guys cannot just buy a commercial license of OSM so they would need to * > completely* stay away from OSM! > > > > > But again, I'm not a lawyer :) > > The thing with ODbl is that even lawyers are not sure because there are > no (or too few) court cases. So the community has to make this very vague > ODbl definition more specific. This clarification would be important to > increase the adoption in the enterprise. > > Regards, > Peter. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
