[OSM-legal-talk] Progressing OSM to a new data Licence regime

[Tom Hughes]

In message <223020e60802040616o6b9562cbtcbd13a1e22dab768 at mail.gmail.com>
        Nick Black <nickblack1 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Feb 4, 2008 11:41 AM, Tom Hughes <tom at compton.nu> wrote:
>
>> I believe so, yes. A shapefile would be a derived database and hence
>> would have to be licensed on the same terms I believe.
>>
>> > How about putting my propriety data and OSM together locked within an
>> > in-car sat nav system. Would this be classed as distribution of the
>> > database? What should my company do in this case?
>>
>> Clearly that is distribution of the database so 4.6(b) would require
>> you to make an unrestricted version available.
>
> Unless it becomes a Collective Database, in which case the share-alike
> clauses (4.4) do not apply.  From my reading of the license, it looks
> like a lot of use cases will hinge on an interpretation of a
> Collective Database.  So if I take TIGER, some of my own GPS points
> and some OSM data, put them into a Shapefile and distribute them, then
> share-alike does not apply.  4.6b also does not apply to a Collective
> Database.

I think that distinction is actually fairly clear in that if you 
have two separate shape files (or whatever format you choose) one
with the OSM data and one with other stuff then that is collective
but it you put it all in one common file that is derivative.

At least that's what the definitions section seems to say.

Tom

-- 
Tom Hughes (tom at compton.nu)
http://www.compton.nu/