> Extracting than 100 elements (non repeatable) from the databse accounts
> > for substantial.
>
The licence doesn't say this at all.
The ODbL defines substantial as:
“Substantial” – Means substantial in terms of quantity or quality or a
combination of both. The repeated and systematic
> Extracting than 100 elements (non repeatable) from the databse accounts
> for substantial.
While someone might easily disagree, I would, however, agree with that.
By taking a little piece from a huge database, one cannot deny a
database to be a substantial investment as a whole. That way you
Extracting than 100 elements (non repeatable) from the databse accounts
for substantial.
Costs has nothing to do with the license.
https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html
Às 20:20 de 10/10/2019, Lars-Daniel Weber escreveu:
First of all, thanks for your answer. I had a long
First of all, thanks for your answer. I had a long talk with a lawyer about
this topic today. He wasn't into geodata, but new about the database directive.
From: "Tom Hummel"
> First, I consider the zip code (as in addr:postcode=/feature/) a primary
> feature, although it is generally
