[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: How obscure/inaccessible can published algorithms be?

[80n]

On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 8:09 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 6:30 PM, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Matt Amos <zerebubuth at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, Dec 12, 2009 at 3:43 PM, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > What kind of duck test can you use to be sure that a derived database
> is
> >> > involved in the process?
> >>
> >> if you suspect that someone is using a derived database, and isn't
> >> making an offer of it, you are suspecting that they are in breach of
> >> the ODbL. this can be tested by asking the company and, if they don't
> >> provide a satisfactory response, legal proceedings could follow.
> >>
> > Exactly.  On what grounds would you suspect that either company was using
> a
> > derived database?
>
> by whatever grounds you'd suspect that a company was providing
> services based on AGPL software, or distributing a binary
> incorporating GPL software - gut instinct ;-)
>

In the scenario I described you'd have no grounds for suspicion.


> let's assume it's known that this company is definitely using OSM data
> - determining that can be difficult, depending on exactly what it is
> they're doing with the data. in general, it's very difficult to do
> anything directly from the planet file alone, so i'd suspect that any
> company doing anything with OSM data has a derived database of some
> kind and, if there's no offer evident on their site, i'd contact them
> about it.
>
> You're going to do that for every single organisation that publishes some
kind of OSM data?!!  Good luck.



> it's a similar situation to looking at a site and thinking they're
> using OSM data to render a map, without respecting the license. it's
> entirely possible that they have some other data source, or have
> collected the data themselves. so it's a gut instinct whether or not
> you think any of the data has come from OSM and should be followed up.
>

Not at all.  The lack of attribution is self evident.  A derived database is
not at all evident.



>
> cheers,
>
> matt
>
> _______________________________________________
> legal-talk mailing list
> legal-talk at openstreetmap.org
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20091212/b50d11cf/attachment.html>