[OSM-legal-talk] "Produced Work" guideline working
zerebubuth at gmail.com
Sat May 23 19:27:21 BST 2009
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 11:01 PM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> Mike Collinson wrote:
>> "If it was intended for the extraction of the original data, then it
>> is a database and not a Produced Work. Otherwise it is a Produced
>> We can clearly define things that are USUALLY Produced Works: .PNG,
>> JPG, .PDF, SVG images and any raster image; a map in a physically
>> printed work.
>> Database dumps are usually not Produced Works, e.g a Planet dump."
> I think it was 80n who, in an older discussion about this, pointed out
> that it may not be helpful to focus on the *intent* of someone doing
> something. Someone might make an SVG file that contains the full
> original OSM data, but without the intent of extracting data, and
> someone else then uses that as a database. But I guess we don't need to
> get all upset about this because if a database is made from the Produced
> Work then ODbL again applies through the reverse engineering clause...
exactly - this is really only about whether someone has a choice of
license for their files or not.
i think its helpful to build up a set of things we think are produced
works and a set of things we think are not. it doesn't have to be an
exhaustive set, since we can build inwards to the grey area based on
common sense (maybe...)
it might be helpful to consider these examples:
1) is the planet dump a database? we've suggested it is, but it would
be interesting to hear any dissenting views.
2) are SVG files produced works? we've suggested they are, but SVG
files are one XSLT transform away from planet files and could be
reversible given some extra custom attributes.
3) are osmChange diffs databases?
4) are routes (i.e: from YOURS, ORS, CM) produced works or DB extracts?
5) are garmin (or other vendor) device images databases?
6) are KML files extracted from OSM databases?
my opinion is that none of the above are databases - but i think i'm
in the minority holding that opinion ;-)
More information about the legal-talk