[OSM-legal-talk] some questions about "Produced Works" under the ODbL

[Oliver (skobbler)]

>What you're saying, basically, is that making a cake loses the (or some)
>properties of the ingredients, thus a produced work; making a car
>doesn't, thus not produced. (Of course making a car also entails
>irreversible actions but let's ignore that for the moment.)
>
>Transferred back to the map database, your argument would be that
>anything which does not allow one to go back to the data is a produced
work. 

You make a distinction between the result can be (a) fully, (b) partly or
(c) not at all be traced back. I think the key question is if you can update
your work based on updated OSM data. This would be the case for (a) and (b)
and therefore not be a Produced Work rather a Derived Work. I was just
making it black or white. "My cake" was considered to fall into category (c)
- not being traceable - and therefore a Produced Work.

I think the "updatability" is key when distinguishing between Derived and
Produced Work. 

>Interesting question: If you did shred the data, would you be allowed to
>publicly display your Atlas afterwards?

To my understanding and in line with my concept above it could be treated as
produced work that is based on non-modified data.

Otherwise any source data of a produced work would have to be made available
and I think this is not the intention.

Regards,
Oliver
-- 
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/OSM-legal-talk-some-questions-about-Produced-Works-under-the-ODbL-tp5080305p5084194.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.