[OSM-legal-talk] When goes a "community guideline" change rather than explain a licence

[David Groom]

When goes a "community guideline" change rather than explain a licence?

There are a number of "community guideline" pages on the wiki.

Some of these pages do clearly seem simply to explain how the ODbL should be 
interpreted, such as "We can clearly define things that are USUALLY Produced 
Works: .PNG, JPG, .PDF, SVG images" [1]

However on the Trival Transformations guideline page [2] there are some 
examples which rather than explaining the interpretation of ODbL do in fact 
seem to negate some of the clauses in ODbL **.   Now I accept that as 
presently written the Trivial Transformations guideline page seems in fact 
to offer no guidelines, but merely asks a series of questions (i.e. it gives 
examples to which no answers are currently given), but I assume at some 
point this page will be translated into actual "guidelines".

So in essence my question is "when does a 'guideline' which seeks to exempt 
something from the consequences of a the ODbL, become a change to the 
licence rather than an explanation of it?"

Regards

David

[1] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Produced_Work_-_Guideline
[2] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Trivial_Transformations_-_Guideline

** the general thrust of a number of the examples sees to be that the 
generation of extracts of the database that does not have any additional 
information added to it, should not be required to adhere to clause 4.6 of 
ODbL.