[OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases

[David Groom]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Anthony" <osm at inbox.org>
To: "Licensing and other legal discussions." <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>; 
"Richard Weait" <richard at weait.com>; "Frederik Ramm" <frederik at remote.org>; 
"David Groom" <reviews at pacific-rim.net>
Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2011 12:29 AM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases


>
> On Mon, Jul 11, 2011 at 7:05 PM, David Groom <reviews at pacific-rim.net> 
> wrote:
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Frederik Ramm" <frederik at remote.org>
>>> To: "Licensing and other legal discussions."
>>> <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
>>> Sent: Monday, July 11, 2011 11:39 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] ODbl and collective databases
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> David,
>>>
>>> David Groom wrote:
>>>>
>>>> This seems to be quite different to my interpretation, and it would be
>>>> good to have some clarification, as the definition is quite fundamental 
>>>> to a
>>>> number of use cases of OSM data.
>>>
>>> You can always make an excerpt from an ODbL licensed database, which
>>> will then be an ODbL licensed database in its own right. That's the
>>> classic "derived database" thing.
>>>
>>
>> Well that's what I asked to this list on 17 June [1] , and you will see 
>> from
>> the only answer received (which incendtally was from a member of the LWG)
>> that an except of an ODbL database will always be a Derivative Database, 
>> and
>> not an ODbL licensed database in its own right.
>
> The correct answer is that it's both.  It is a Database, with respect
> to the license offered by the creator of the Derivative.  And it's a
> Derivative Database, with respect to the license offered by the author
> of the original database.
>

Thanks for the clarification.

Regards

David


>> Now I'm happy to believe that RW was wrong, but it would have been 
>> helpful
>> if someone had pointed that out before now.
>
> Reading his answer, I don't think it's fair to say he was wrong.
>
>