[OSM-legal-talk] public transport routing and OSM-ODbL

Matt Amos zerebubuth at gmail.com
Thu Jul 8 15:24:14 BST 2010


I agree with Andy. This is what I understand the ODbL to be saying.
Unfortunately, as with any legal text, its difficult to read and this is an
unavoidable consequence of the legal system. If you need interpretation of
the license, new or old, the best route may be to consult a lawyer.

Cheers,

Matt

On Jul 8, 2010 10:18 AM, "Andy Allan" <gravitystorm at gmail.com> wrote:

On Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 9:35 PM, Oliver (skobbler) <osm.oliver.kuehn at gmx.de>
wrote: > > Hi Frederick,...
Either you mis-spoke in this sentence, or you are wrong with this
assertion. If you have a derived database, and make a produced work,
you are required to make the derived database available under the
ODbL. That's practically the whole point of the ODbL!

Section 4.5b, which amongst other things is a classic "could do with
some scoping parenthesis" piece of legalese, is only clarifying that
if the produced work is made up from a collective database, e.g.
"(derived + some other db) =>produced work" then the collective db is
not considered derived - i.e. the some-other-db can stay non-ODbL
licensed. But if you make a produced work (actually, if you "publicly
use" said produced work), then the derived database must be shared in
any case (4.4a and 4.4c).

As for Frederik's initial question, part 1. is unavoidably share-alike
as soon as the produced work is publicly used. Part 2 I'll leave for
others.

Cheers,
Andy

_______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk at openstreetmap.or...
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20100708/b4768fd4/attachment.html>


More information about the legal-talk mailing list