On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 12:40 PM, Paul Norman <penor...@mac.com> wrote: > > On 2014-07-14 11:26 AM, Alex Barth wrote: >> >> Also if we assume geocoding yields Produced Work the definition of >> Substantial doesn't matter. > > A database that is "based upon the Database, and includes any translation, > adaptation, arrangement, modification, or any other alteration of the > Database or of a Substantial part of the Contents" is a derivative database. > This doesn't exclude databases where the items in the database are produced > works, e.g. a database of geocoding results. > > If you are extracting insubstantial parts of the database (keeping in mind > that repeated insubstantial can be substantial) than the ODbL imposes no > requirements, not share-alike nor attribution.
To me it seems that there is a demarcation line between ephemeral geocoding on the one hand, where a singular coordinate pair is extracted from OSM as the result of a geocoding operation for the purpose of immediate use, leading to a Produced Work, and 'permanent geocoding' (as mentioned in the guidelines) on the other hand, where geocoding is used in a systematic way, leading to a Derivative database. Correct? This should be made clearer in the definition part of the guideline then, which now encapsulates both these use cases stating the result of geocoding is 'one or more "Geocodes". Geocodes are then stored either permanently or temporarily [...]'. -- Martijn van Exel http://oegeo.wordpress.com/ http://openstreetmap.us/ _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
