Ack. Sorry. I was asked not to post this on the talk list and I didn't realize until after I sent it where it was going.
On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 4:25 PM, Anthony <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 3:27 PM, David Groom <[email protected]> wrote: >> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Anthony" <[email protected]> >>> How long do I have to keep a copy of the adapted database in case >>> someone takes me up on my offer? How much of the database do I need >>> to keep? Is the offer valid to third parties? If person A makes a >>> bunch of tiles from a database, and person B prints out a map from >>> those tiles and gives the map to person C, who offers person C the >>> copy of the adapted database? (Person B likely doesn't have a copy, >>> but Person A would have to keep a ton of obsolete data indefinitely if >>> his offer is valid to third parties.) >>> >> >> It would depend on who was making the tiles and the print outs "publicly >> available" > > In the example I've given, both A and B have made the work "publicly > available", right? (As far as I can tell, private distribution "to > Persons other than You or under Your control by either more than 50% > ownership or by the power to direct their activities", such as from > Person B to Person C, counts as "making publicly available".) > > So if B prints out a map with directions to X (a bar, a meetup, a > class, whatever), B has to include an offer [of one of those three > choices]. > >> It is the person who makes the produced work publicly available >> who has to comply with clause 4.6. So if A made the tiles publicly >> available he would have to comply, and if B printed out the map, and then >> made that map publicly available he would have to comply as well. > > Right, but what does it mean for A to comply? Does A have to offer > [one of the three choices] only to the people who download the tiles, > or does A have to offer [one of the three choices] to third parties > who receive tiles indirectly? Does A have to offer [one of the three > choices] to third parties who receive derivatives of those tiles > indirectly? > > The former is certainly much easier for A to comply with than the latter. > > If you take a look at section 6 of the GPL, it's all spelled out a lot > more clearly (all my questions are answered): > > The time limit is 3 years. The source code includes "all the source > code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the > object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those > activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, > or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which > are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not > part of the work." Nothing more, nothing less. The offer must be > valid for "anyone who possesses the object code", including third > parties. In the case of Person B, if the redistribution is done > "occasionally and noncommercially", then Person B can simply give a > copy of the offer s/he received from Person A. If the redistribution > is not occasional, or is commercial, then Person B has to give an > offer of his/her own (or the source code itself). > > If that's what's intended by the ODbL, then that should be spelled > out. And I think it's too much of a burden on Person A. Though given > a shorter time period (say, 3 months), I guess it's reasonable. > > As it stands maybe I just shouldn't sweat it at all, as I can just > give an offer which expires in 15 days and doesn't include third > parties, and still be within the letter of the license (*). But I > don't really want to do that. I'd rather try to figure out what's > actually intended, and get that spelled out in the license. > > (*) According to some people on the fosm list, I can say that the > offer expires December 31, 1999 and still be in compliance with the > letter of the license. But I'm not so sure about that. > _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
