<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Arial">Extracting than 100 elements (non repeatable)
from the databse accounts for substantial.</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial">Costs has nothing to do with the license.<br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html">https://opendatacommons.org/licenses/odbl/1.0/index.html</a></font></p>
<p><font face="Arial"></font><br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Às 20:20 de 10/10/2019, Lars-Daniel
Weber escreveu:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:trinity-bb1746ed-54cd-49e5-94cc-b1320b91e37e-1570735239725@3c-app-gmx-bap25">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">First of all, thanks for your answer. I had a long talk with a lawyer about this topic today. He wasn't into geodata, but new about the database directive.
From: "Tom Hummel" <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:tom@bluespice.org"><tom@bluespice.org></a>
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">First, I consider the zip code (as in addr:postcode=/feature/) a primary
feature, although it is generally considered an “additional property”,
as in ¹. My reason would be that I don’t see any meaningful distinction
for the purposes of identifying wether a database can be called
collective or not. A feature being called primary or additional doesn’t
seem to bear any meaning towards being substantial or non-substantial
either.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
He said this:
The database policy does not know about "primary features" or "additional properties". It defines a substantial part in such a way that the extracted part has a large part of the costs (investment) the generation/collection, maintenance, care of the entire database takes. So when collecting all the nodes for a zip code takes 1,000 users and one ear of effort, it might be substantial. However, as we all know, this is not the case. They're just part of the big planet database and vary in quality and effort all over the world. So extracting the zip codes for a small extract of the huge planet file, isn't substantial at all. This is because the maintenance, care and provision of the postal codes costs no more or less than the maintenance, care and provision of the other elements. Also measured by the number of elements, the zip codes only make up a small part (actually, this doesn't matter, since the investment is the important thing).
He didn't write it up, but he came to the conclusion that the database directive wouldn't come into play here at all. In comparison to the whole planet, the zip codes for my extract are trivial and not touching the investment, the OSM community or the database holder are affording.
Saying this, this non-substantial extract doesn't fall under ODbL, but is simple DbCL. Like results of geocoding, which is also part of the Community Guidelines.
What do you think? Sorry, I didn't even think about this before asking the lawyer :-(
_______________________________________________
legal-talk mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:legal-talk@openstreetmap.org">legal-talk@openstreetmap.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk">https://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>