[OSM-legal-talk] Lawyer responses to use cases, major problems

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

    to make this clearer:

Simon Ward wrote:
> ODbL already defines derivatives, produced works and collective
> databases separately, and is much more permissive for the latter two.
> Distribute a derived database, share it please.

The spirit of the database share-alike license is to force people to 
give back any improvements they make to the database.

If we have before us a license that will also force people to make 
available any interim product that does not constitute an improvement, 
at potentially prohibitive cost to them (because, as in my osm2pgsql 
example, creating the interim derivative costs 10 seconds while making 
it available costs 30 minutes or so), then we do not gain anything from 
this and *either* ruin potential uses *or* - and this is the more likely 
outcome - start disregarding our own license from day one because we 
carry on making current tiles available without making the matching 
current osm2pgsql dumps available.

I'm surprised that nobody else seems to see a problem in this. Am I 
perhaps barking up some completely imaginary tree?

Bye
Frederik

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