> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:legal-talk- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tim Waters (chippy) > Sent: 14 October 2008 21:22 > To: Licensing and other legal discussions. > Subject: [Spam] Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Licence brief/Use Case - final call > forcomments > > On 10/14/08, Peter Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > This is a final call for comments by readers of legal-talk for feedback > on > > the brief and the use cases. > > I think we should make it clear in each use case the full > requirements, the whole picture, including whether they would also be > required to make available any changed osm data, derivative database > etc. > > For example, I'm not sure but I think that "Publishing a simple map > in a book, newsletter" would require a not-so-simple requirement to > make the data they used available, somehow... >
I agree. Would you like to propose the wording? (and anyone else for that matter). In the case of the map in the newsletter there should possibly be two different use cases not one. One where standard OSM data is being used, and another where a Derivative Database is used containing additional or changed data. In the first case nothing no DB needs to be published, in the second it does. Possibly the first use case is a map of a village as currently in the OSM DB, for the second it is the village with a proposed Bypass included and some minor roads diverted etc. This would need to be described in a fork of the DB and then either a differential DB would need to be published, or a copy of the full dataset for the fork along with the map in the newsletter. Regards, Peter > _______________________________________________ > legal-talk mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
