[OSM-legal-talk] ODbL and publishing source data
80n80n at gmail.com
Mon Nov 28 16:31:35 GMT 2011
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Eugene Alvin Villar <seav80 at gmail.com>wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 6:00 AM, Ed Avis <eda at waniasset.com> wrote:
> > I see that you and Frederik disagreed here. (FWIW I think he is right -
> a PNG
> > file can clearly be seen as a database of pixel values. It is an image
> > and perhaps even a map or a photograph, but legally it would be hard to
> > that it *not* a database.)
> Taking this argument to its logical conclusion, every digital file is
> a database of bytes and thus everything you create digitally from any
> ODbL database is a derived database and not a produced work.
> This seems silly.
> The European definition of a database is "a collection of independent
> works, data or other materials arranged in a systematic or methodical
> way and individually accessible by electronic or other means".
> Individual pixels comprising a typical image (say a PNG map tile) are
> not independent works. Each pixel cannot stand on its own and aren't
> useful unless considered together with its neighboring pixels to form
> an image.
> Pixels may not be independent works but I think they might be "data or
other materials", in which case they are covered by that definition.
The nearest thing we've got to a good definition of this is that if you use
it like a database then it is a database. Whether the courts would agree
with that definition remains to be tested, but much discussion here has not
yet arrived at anything better.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the legal-talk