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

Eugene Alvin Villar seav80 at gmail.com
Mon Nov 28 16:38:39 GMT 2011

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 12:31 AM, 80n <80n80n at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
>> > too,
>> > and perhaps even a map or a photograph, but legally it would be hard to
>> > argue
>> > 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.

I think the word "independent" also applies to "data" and "other materials".

More information about the legal-talk mailing list