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

[Frederik Ramm]

Hi,

On 10/30/12 08:19, Igor Brejc wrote:
> Some then say that these in-memory data structures are also Derivative
> Databases. In what form can you then offer such a Database to someone
> that requests it?

I don't think there's a way how one could require the making available 
of such a transient structure without making OSM data processing totally 
impractical.

> Again, I really don't see how the 4.6 clause can be applied in some
> meaningful way, other than scaring "small players" off and leaving the
> ground to big guys with multi-billion budgets who aren't really afraid
> of ODbL anyway. That's why we need some well-thought-through community
> guidelines which address closed source software, too.

Always keep in mind that the "machine readable" clause is only there as 
an alternative in cases where you would prefer not to make the derived 
database available; you can *always* settle for making the derived 
database available instead and then nobody cares about your software.

(Btw. you always write "source code" but the ODbL does not talk about 
source code; isn't a binary just as "machine readable"?)

See also: 
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Open_Data_License/Closed_Issues#What_sort_of_access_to_Derivative_Databases_is_required.3F

The page is quite old; the green boxes represent legal advice that we 
have received at the time.

Bye
Frederik

-- 
Frederik Ramm  ##  eMail frederik at remote.org  ##  N49°00'09" E008°23'33"