On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 12:08 PM, Alex Barth <a...@mapbox.com> wrote:
> How would the Collective Database approach work if the OSM Database must > remain unmodified to be part of a Collective Database? > > The definition of Collective Database seems to be tailored to use cases > where the OpenStreetMap database *in unmodified form* is part of a larger > database. I can't quite conjure up a real world example, but the ODbL is > pretty clear about this: > > > “Collective Database” – Means this Database in unmodified form as part > of a collection of independent databases in themselves that together are > assembled into a collective whole. A work that constitutes a Collective > Database will not be considered a Derivative Database. - See more at: > http://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1-0/#sthash.mDtnZAPO.dpuf > The "this Database in unmodified form" means the particular database that is licensed under ODbL. It can be the OSM database itself, or any database derived from the OSM database that must in itself be licensed under ODbL. So if you did any transformations on the OSM database (ex., converted it into a form suitable for a geocoder), the transformed database is licensed under the ODbL. You can either publish this transformed database or provide the software used to create the transformed database to comply with the license of the source OSM database. Then, this geocoder database can become part of the collective database.
_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list legal-talk@openstreetmap.org https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
