While exactly "the data" may not be "in" the derived work, because of the process of their creation, "their spirit" are in the derived work, as they were a part of the new data's production. That strongly seems "derived" to me, whether that "spirit" is inspirational or gives rise to "do include this, don't include that." These decisions are based upon OSM data, so OSM is being "derived" to make the new work.
Again, if the data aren't derived from OSM, please create them exactly the same withOUT OSM data and "then we shall see" (whether OSM data are necessary or optional for the new work's duplicate creation). If you can do that without OSM data, please do so. If you MUST use OSM data (even if no actual OSM data end up in the final work), then please agree that the final work is at least partly derived from OSM data. This doesn't seem that difficult to do on a verbal level, though again, I'm not sure of how it holds up legally. SteveA California > On Nov 14, 2019, at 2:45 PM, Martin Koppenhoefer <[email protected]> > wrote: > I guess the law often doesn’t work like common sense. ODbL says it protects > the database or a substantial extract of it. Where’s the data from OSM in > this dataset? > > Cheers Martin >> On 14. Nov 2019, at 23:25, stevea <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> But if you DO use that "OSM over-layer," then please: agree with common >> sense that those work are derived from OSM, even if they do not contain OSM >> data in them. They contain data "helped" by OSM data, so they are derived >> (I would argue). _______________________________________________ talk mailing list [email protected] https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/talk
