[OSM-legal-talk] questions on "Collective Database" definition

[andrzej zaborowski]

On 23 May 2010 11:08, David Mirchin <dmirchin at meitar.com> wrote:
> 1.  It appears that a Collective Database is only when the OSM database "in
> unmodified form" is part of a collection of independent databases which are
> assembled into a collective whole. Does that mean that if the OSM database
> is modified (to create a Derivative Work) that it can never form part of a
> Collective Database?

By my reading a Collective Database is when whatever database covered
by the ODbL is part of a collection of independent databases.  Since a
Derived Database is covered by the ODbL it, too, can be a Collective
Database.

(BTW I think the wording isn't very consistent in ODbL v1.0.  It says
the Collective Database is the Database as part of a collection.  It's
not the collection, but rather the Database (in company of other
databases).  Then it other places, such as the definition of "Convey",
it says "this and that the Database as part of a Collective Database".
 Since Collective Database is the Database, "part of a Collective
Database" to me means perhaps a subset of the records in the Database.
 The Database is never a part of itself so it's never a part of a
Collective Database.)

Cheers