[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL "virality" questions
zerebubuth at gmail.com
Thu Oct 8 14:05:07 BST 2009
On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 1:55 PM, Gustav Foseid <gustavf at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 2, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com> wrote:
>> what are your thoughts?
> I have a hard time seeing how any of these usecases can be anything other
> than insubstantial extractions. The database directive (article 15) says
> that "Any contractual provision contrary to Articles 6 (1) and 8 shall be
> null and void" where 8 says that extraction of insubstantial parts are
substantial itself is not defined, so we have a guideline for it
looking at the definition (which is negative, these are for insubstantialness):
* Less than 100 Features.
all UK pubs is likely to be more than 100 features.
* More that 100 Features only if the extraction is non-systematic
and clearly based on your own qualitative criteria for example an
extract of all the the locations of restaurants you have visited for a
personal map to share with friends or use the locations of a selection
of historic buildings as an adjunct in a book you are writing, we
would regard that as non Substantial. The systematic extraction of all
eating places within an area or at all castles within an area would be
considered to be systematic.
looks like all UK pubs would be considered systematic, therefore substantial.
* The features relating to an area of up to 1,000 inhabitants
which can be a small densely populated area such as a European village
or can be a large sparsely-populated area for example a section of the
UK population is almost 61 million, so it looks substantial on this count too.
are you suggesting that we change our guideline on what is substantial?
> Why would we want to make guidelines that are "null and void" in the EU? I
> cannot see any gain for OSM in trying to overstate our rights.
More information about the legal-talk