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

[Igor Brejc]

On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Frederik Ramm <frederik at remote.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
>
I agree, but in that case the author of the Produced Work could simply say:
"I choose to go by the clause 4.6a and publish the entire Derivative
Database, but since the only practically publishable Database is the
original OSM XML file, I'm sending you just the link to the downloadable
extract from Geofabrik". I would thus satisfy the 4.6 clause. Am I wrong?


> 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.
>

I realize that, but I think anyone involved in making Produced Works will
want to explore all the alternatives before deciding which one suits them
most.


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

You have a point. I guess I was just repeating the logic mentioned in the
"Open Data License/Trivial Transformations - Guideline" without really
thinking about it.

Igor
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstreetmap.org/pipermail/legal-talk/attachments/20121030/6a78a4a6/attachment-0001.html>