[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL: Where do we stand regarding collective/derivative databases

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

Matt Amos wrote:
> LWG cannot entirely resolve these questions, as they need open
> discussion and community consensus (which we obviously can't provide
> on our own). even then, final interpretation is up to the courts.

Of course.

Thanks for your comments, I especially liked the a(b(X)@c(Y)) part which 
is a nice structure to think about this.

But about my Navteq+OSM example, you said that
> my reading would be that the deletions from the OSM data are a
> derivative database of both the OSM data and the navteq data and that
> the combination of navteq + (OSM - derivative) constitutes a public
> use of that derivative database, requiring the release of the navteq
> data.

Now if I loaded my Navteq database into postgis and created a buffer 
around every object, generating one giant buffer area multipolygon for 
the whole world, then I could use that to subtract data from my OSM data 
base and would then only have to publish the giant multipolygon under 
ODbL (because that was mixed with OSM data) and not the original Navteq 
data.

So this means I'd have to get permission from Navteq to release the 
giant buffer multipolygon under ODbL but if that is granted, I could 
continue with my OSM-enhanced Navteq tiles plan, and OSM would gain 
precious little from having access to the Navteq buffer multipolygon. Right?

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"