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

[David Groom]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Richard Fairhurst" <richard at systemed.net>
To: <legal-talk at openstreetmap.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 30, 2011 3:46 PM
Subject: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] Exception in OpenDataLicense/Community 
Guidelines for temporary file


>
> 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.

But ODbL defines "substantial " as "Means substantial in terms of quantity 
or quality ", so whilst is not necessarily  "qualitatively Substantial " I 
would argue that a regional subset was "quantitatively Substantial ".

We also have be mindful of the OSM guideline of substantial [1], which seems 
to indicate that only very small extracts counts as insubstantial.

>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".
>

Yes I can see that.

My concern is that I had assumed that one of the objectives in moving from 
CC-BY-SA was to make it easier for people to use the data in the OSM 
database, and yet now we seem to be moving towards placing more requirements 
on the users of OSM data, which to my mind is not necessarily going to 
increase the chances of OSM data being used in the first place.  But then 
that's just my opinion, other will I'm sure have different views.

Regards
David


[1] 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Substantial_-_Guideline

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