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

[andrzej zaborowski]

Hi,

2009/7/28 Dave Stubbs <osm.list at randomjunk.co.uk>:
> On Tue, Jul 28, 2009 at 2:54 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
>> 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?
>>
>
> Do you even have to go that far? The Navteq multipolygon isn't actually part
> of the resulting derivative database, it's just part of the algorithm to get
> there. Assuming the result is just a shrunk version of the OSM DB I'd have
> thought the only thing you had to release in this case was the alterations
> made to the OSM DB -- ie: a list of the bits you deleted.

One difference is that the list of deleted items is derived from both
Navteq and OSM, so you would have to release the data with which you
mixed the OSM data, which would be the buffer shape, while the buffer
shape is derived solely from Navteq data and if you're able to release
it under ODbL then you don't have to release anything else.
(perhaps?)

Cheers