[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data

Frederik Ramm frederik at remote.org
Mon Nov 28 11:25:06 GMT 2011


On 11/28/11 11:58, 80n wrote:
> That's a very fine line you are trying to draw.

Yes, I agree it is difficult. I think that it is entirely possible to 
arrive at an identical end product through different processes, where 
one process has different license implications than the other.

For example:

I could render a map from OSM and then render something else on top of 
it, say a commercially acquired set of hotel POIs. That would clearly be 
a Produced Work; I could point anyone asking for the source data to the 
planet file and the rendering rule, and keep the hotel POIs to myself.

I could also remove all hotels from my OSM copy and add in the 
commercial hotels instead, then render a map from it. Unless the 
commercial dataset is missing data, the resulting map could look 100% 
identical to the map from the first process, but this time I would be 
required to release the hotel dataset because it is part of the derived 
database used to create the produced work.

Same thing with your reply to my "pencil" example - depending on how 
exactly you update your produced work, you might or might not have to 
release a database.

I am interested in exploring this further with the aim of finding good 
community norms, nailing down the problem cases, and making the 
introduction of ODbL for OSM a success.

I will happily continue a constructive discussion if you share these goals.


More information about the legal-talk mailing list