[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data
80n80n at gmail.com
Mon Nov 28 10:58:22 GMT 2011
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> On 11/28/11 10:43, 80n wrote:
>> If you cannot reproduce the Produced Work 100% faithfully from the
>> Derived Database in what sense does the Derived Database contain all of
>> the information required to create the Produced Work?
> It doesn't, and it doesn't have to. Only in so far as the *database* has
> been augmented to make the produced work does such information have to be
> released. Any other, non-database input (what you seem to call "worthless
> prettyfing" - I guess that members of the trade might disagree!) that
> becomes part of the Produced Work is not affected by the ODbL.
> If new information is added at the non-database stage - let's say someone
> prints out a map, paints something over it making the whole thing a work of
> art, then notices a missing road and pencils it in - then that is not the
> making of a derived database and does not have to be shared. If the same
> guy, however, goes back the the data, adds the road, and makes a new
> rendering from it, then it is.
That's a very fine line you are trying to draw.
What you are saying is that I can create a map, publish it as a produced
work and then update that map as much as I like with impunity. Technically
I can do that using a pencil as you suggest, or I can do the same thing by
processing the produced work into a digital form and applying "pencil
marks" using an automated process. But if you allow the latter then you
effectively allow reverse engineering of the produced work.
Why should a lead pencil be considered ok, but an electronic pencil not be
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk