<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Thanks and I'll have a closer look in
the archive!<br>
<br>
Peter.<br>
<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CA+CKBJFTWPHScdo446vx2n5FH8JHYFWhpMgnvoJW70fvZmitUA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">To answer all your questions in one go: there has been
a lot of discussion (especially on this mailing list) about the
problems/issues you raised. And there have been some efforts to
better clarify these things. I suggest reading the mailing list
archive.
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>My own opinion is that the legal issues here are murky and I
agree they could be interpreted differently by different
lawyers/people. And I guess it is very difficult to write a good
license text for such type of license, since there are a lot of
different ways the data could be used, lot of corner cases and a
lot of ways the licence could be circumvented by interested
parties if written too specifically. I guess the protecting
power of ODbL is in its murkiness :)
<div>
<br>
</div>
<div>I would not give myself too much hope with interpretations
of "trivial" and "substantial", in my opinion your use case
falls well outside of a trivial and unsubstantial use. <br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Peter K <span dir="ltr"><<a
moz-do-not-send="true" href="mailto:peathal@yahoo.de"
target="_blank">peathal@yahoo.de</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="gmail_quote">Thanks Igor!<br>
<br>
I still have a problem when the "substantial" part of
the license apply. Also in the wiki there is an
explanation about "trivial transformation". Are there
some examples when both of them applies?<br>
<br>
The wiki raises more questions then it solves as it
e.g. does not say if the example is a trivial
transformation or not:<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline"
target="_blank">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline</a>
<div class="im">
<br>
<br>
> Both, I think - this means you publicly
distribute the Derivative Database, which has its
implications. It also means <br>
> that CGIAR-based data is then available to
public through a license different (and more
permissive) than the original <br>
> CGIAR license, which the owner is probably not
going to be happy about - since he then cannot
enforce the <br>
> "<i>If interested in using this data for
commercial purposes please email</i>" rule.<br>
<br>
</div>
Ok, makes sense! BTW: why is such a modification not
allowed for OpenStreetMap? IMO this limits the
applications a lot as also enterprise guys cannot just
buy a commercial license of OSM so they would need to
<b>completely</b> stay away from OSM!
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
<br>
> But again, I'm not a lawyer :)<br>
<br>
</div>
</div>
The thing with ODbl is that even lawyers are not sure
because there are no (or too few) court cases. So the
community has to make this very vague ODbl definition
more specific. This clarification would be important to
increase the adoption in the enterprise.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Peter.<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>