[OSM-legal-talk] Database and its contents (was: Best license for future tiles?)

[Ed Avis]

Grant Slater <openstreetmap at ...> writes:

>>>The relationship between ODbL and DbCL is not very clear and I'm not
>>>convinced that lawyers really understand the distinction between a database
>>>and it's content.

>Database definition as per the ODbL (definition modelled on EU
>Database Directive 96/9/EC):
>“Database” – A collection of material (the Contents) arranged in a
>systematic or methodical way and individually accessible by electronic
>or other means offered under the terms of this License.

That would apply to anything created from OSM, wouldn't it?
Even a printed map is certainly arranged in a systematic and methodical way.

>Anything "substantial" is governed by the ODbL otherwise DbCL.
>See the guideline on substantial here:
>http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline

Thanks, this is something concrete.  Less than 100 features - you're in the
clear.  More than that (with some exceptions) - considered substantial and
must be produced under ODbL.

I still don't quite get what the 'contents' are, though, and how some 'contents'
can ever be considered in isolation from the 'database' that holds them.  Even
if you extract only half a square mile of the map you still have a database,
albeit a smaller one.  Even if you only want a list of all coffee shops you still
have a database.

-- 
Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com>