Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Alex Barth]

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

On Thu, Aug 21, 2014 at 1:26 PM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:

 Rob,

 On 08/21/2014 06:42 PM, Rob Myers wrote:
  It would be great if people would help fill in the blanks, or
  correct me where I might have misrepresented the discussion.
 
  The page asserts:
 
  Geocodes are a Produced Work

 [...]


  The rest of the page then silently slips

 [...]

 I have tried to present the two different viewpoints in two columns. On
 the left is Alex' original version which claims what you summarized in
 your message (that geocodes are produced works etc.); on the right is a
 version that explicitly claims A database of Geocodes is a derivative
 database by the definition of the ODbL - which seems to be exactly the
 statement that you were aiming at, no?

 The blanks that need filling are the consequences of this different
 interpreatation for the various use cases. I added one for use case #1,
 but only an empty column for use cases #2-#4 and #7. I added no extra
 column for #5 and #6 because those struck me as identical under both
 interpretations but of course I might be wrong.

 Bye
 Frederik

 --
 Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frede...@remote.org  ##  N49°00'09 E008°23'33

 ___
 legal-talk mailing list
 legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
 https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Updated geocoding community guideline proposal

[Eugene Alvin Villar]

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