[OSM-legal-talk] Licenses for Produced Works under ODbL

[Martin Koppenhoefer]

2012/10/22 Jonathan Harley <jon at spiffymap.net>:

> You have an obligation to make your derivative database available, if you
> made one.


or describe the details and release the code, how you did it, in this
case you don't have to release the data.


> You also have an obligation to tell anyone you give or sell your work to,
> that its contents are bound by ODbL and that the attribution requirement
> applies to them too.
> (There seems to be some doubt about this, but my personal view is, if you
> don't tell users of your produced work that they must do this, you have
> failed the requirement in ODbL 4.3 to include a notice calculated to make
> ANY person who views your work - even when incorporated in someone else's
> work - aware of ODbL.)


+1


>>  1. Would there be a difference if it was PNG/SVG instead of PDF?
> No, it's still a produced work.


there is a practical difference. They are produced works as longs as
you use them as an image, but when you start tracing from them into a
database or converting them back you will get a derivative database
under the ODbL and you would have to credit OSM. Obviously it is
easier to extract geometry and attributes from vector data than it is
from rasters.


> Unless, and I'm assuming you don't intend this, it was accurate enough to be
> used as data - for example, if you labelled the lat/long of the bounding box
> accurately and included high enough resolution vector data.


I think you won't have to judge on how high the resolution would have
to be, neither must the image be georeferenced: with any
translation/modification/alteration a database would still remain a
derivative database under the ODbL. Frederik wrote some time ago he
believes it might depend on the intent with which you use the work.
According to this you might probably use the same work as work and as
database, and according to your use, different terms would apply. What
is important here is that the recipient of the work gets notice of the
obligations in case he would reuse the work as a database. So actually
the license with which you release your produced work is not
comparable to having the full copyright.

At least this is what I hope ;-) . I am not sure if legally there is
maybe the requirement for an explicit restriction to not re-engineer /
re-construct the database from produced works in order to prohibit it,
in this case this would be a loophole.

Cheers,
Martin