<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body 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 class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline">http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline</a><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>
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!<br>
<br>
<br>
> But again, I'm not a lawyer :)<br>
<br>
</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>
<br>
</body>
</html>