[OSM-legal-talk] To calm some waters - about Section 3

Simon Ward simon at bleah.co.uk
Wed Aug 25 09:20:18 BST 2010


On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 09:44:13AM +0200, Frederik Ramm wrote:
> Simon Ward wrote:
> >OSMF have chosen DbCL for individual database contents.  That leaves
> >quite some flexibility in how individual contents may be used and
> >distributed without taking into account the extraction from the database
> >that is covered by the ODbL.
> 
> I would be interested to discussing that flexibility further. Can
> you give examples for using and distributing individual contents
> that way?

Without having first extracted it from the database, I can’t give any,
because the extraction from the database is covered by the rights on the
database.

It is theoretically possible that your extraction is not substantial:

You could have a way of taking the data for an “item” and inserting its
data into a blog.  It may be contained in your blog’s database, you
might add a couple of extra attributes for your blog, but still not be
required to distribute any part of your blog’s database, including the
modified item.

If we assumed there were rights in this extraction (e.g. sweat of the
brow, involving some decision about how to map it, or artistic), then
the licence on the content comes into play and you should also abide by
those terms.  If the licence were stronger than DbCL, for example
including attribution and/or share alike, you may be required to list
the contributors and/or also provide access to a suitable “source” form
(e.g. OSM format) of the data.

Simon
-- 
A complex system that works is invariably found to have evolved from a
simple system that works.—John Gall
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100825/78b7b1ac/attachment.pgp>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list