[OSM-legal-talk] Exception in Open DataLicense/Community Guidelines for temporary file

[Richard Fairhurst]

David Groom wrote:
> However where you *don't* add data, but merely process the OSM data, 
> either by extracting some sub-set of it, or simply by transforming it from 
> one form of database to another, then what is the point of requiring 
> compliance with ODbL clause 4.6.

You seem to be assuming that compliance _would_ be required. I'm not sure
whether it would be. It's possible that the diff between (say) a full planet
and a regional subset isn't qualitatively Substantial and therefore doesn't
need to be released. That may also be true for transforming from one form of
database to another. (In any case, even if it is, the requirement could be
fulfilled by putting a single line on a wiki page somewhere with the
Osmosis/ogr2ogr/whatever command line you used.)

But let's say that you produce a Derivative Database that contains a very
cool optimised routing graph from OSM data: no new data, just processed. The
share-alike viewpoint might be that it's genuinely useful to OSM to have
either the full Derivative, or the algorithm. That would be "the point".

(Again, IRMFI, as you probably know I'm a PD sort myself.)

cheers
Richard



--
View this message in context: http://gis.638310.n2.nabble.com/Exception-in-Open-Data-License-Community-Guidelines-for-temporary-file-tp6504201p6533566.html
Sent from the Legal Talk mailing list archive at Nabble.com.