On Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 1:29 AM, SteveC <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 4 Mar 2009, at 10:26, Dave Stubbs wrote: > > > 2009/3/4 Gustav Foseid <[email protected]>: > >> On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 6:38 PM, David Earl <[email protected] > >> > > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> They used the map to pin the locations - the points did not come > >>> from > >>> some other map. Therefore it is derived (this is precisely the > >>> problem > >>> with pinning pictures on a Google or OSM map). So if they put the > >>> data > >>> in a database (= spreadsheet for example) before printing it, that > >>> would > >>> be derived, surely. > >> > >> The coordinates came from a Produced Work (some map image og paper > >> map). As > >> I read the license, works (or databases) based on a Produced Work > >> is not > >> subject to the conditions of the ODbL. > > > > > > If you were able to extract coordinates then this could be regarded as > > reverse engineering the Produced Work, in which case it's covered by > > 4.7 > > There's that "substantial" caveat again though. > > Very unlikely, derived individual coordinates are facts. I've asked > multiple lawyers about this personally. >
Are you saying that facts that are derived from a Produced Work are not covered by the reverse engineering clause? If I derive the location of all the street corners of a city from a rendered map then that is just a collection of facts and not a reverse engineered recreation of the original database? If so, it doesn't seem like the reverse engineering clause is worth the paper its written on. 80n > > Best > > Steve > > > _______________________________________________ > talk mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk >
_______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
