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

[Peter Miller]

>
> Simon Ward wrote:
>>> this could mean that
>>> anyone running osm2pgsql importing minutely data updates would  
>>> possibly
>>> have to make available a ''psql dump of the whole planet'' for any
>>> snapshot time where someone cares to request it.
>>
>> So be it.
>
> Do you have any suggestion on how to achieve this technically?

We discussed this on legal-talk some time back, and explored the  
possibility of making a distinction between 'the same data in a  
different internal format' and 'new data'. Personally I have no  
interest in having legal access to yet another different internal  
model of the same data; I only want access to new data or corrected  
data in an accessible format.

There is also the option that says that a Collective DB does not need  
to be released, only the OSM component, and as such I believe that if  
one combined the OSM data with some other datasource to create a  
collective DB then one would not need to go through this release  
process if one was using OSM data in 'an unmodified form'. We will be  
asking our lawyer for their interpretation of 'in unmodified form. If  
one takes the OSM data in XML OSM format and puts it in a DB by an  
automated process then has one modified it? I hope not

Personally I think the current definition of a Derivative Database is  
unhelpful restrictive and should be loosened to only include  
situations where new data is added, and exclude ones where it has only  
been rearranged.



Regards,


Peter


>
>
> http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20090301/82e345b3/attachment.html>