[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data
80n80n at gmail.com
Mon Nov 28 11:55:44 GMT 2011
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:25 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:
> 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.
This is an overlay on top of a Produced Work. Whether it's produced by
layers at the browser end or by compositing two separate images doesn't
seem to be materially different.
> 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.
Leaving aside the step about removing content for the moment, I don't see
how this is materially different from the first example. You've simply
overlaid your hotels on top of the OSM data. I don't think the mechanics
of how you achieved this are, from a legal perspective, important. Any
process can be considered as a series of inputs to a black box and some
outputs. If the inputs are the same (an OSM database and a set of POIs)
and the output is the same (a map with an overlay of the POIs) then it
shouldn't matter whether it was achieved using a complex machine or monkeys
> 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.
If this were to be possible then it would be a very undesirable flaw. The
intent of ODbL was to protect OSMs database and ensure share-alike. If it
can be circumvented then it fails one of its main purposes.
> 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'm interested in finding out where the weaknesses in ODbL are and ensuring
that they are understood. Version 1 of anything is likely to have
imperfections and it would be better to find them sooner rather than
later. A working version of ODbL is the goal I would aim for.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk